1960-07-04

PRIVILEGE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. S. Speakman (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege affecting many of the members of this honourable house. My question of privilege is based on a statement attributed to the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) which appears in the Globe and Mail of Friday, July 1, 1960:
Mr. Argue charged that the Conservative M.P.'s have never represented the farmers in parliament.
The hon. member for Assiniboia and the gentlemen from the fourth estate know that members of the government and government backbenchers are honest and hard-working members of parliament fully conscious of their responsibilities to the people they represent and to Canada.


Mr. Winch:: The people will be glad to know that.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of ihe Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he is now in a position to deal with the question which I asked him on Friday about negotiations with the United States regarding the use of nuclear weapons for Canadian forces, and which he said he would be in a position to answer today.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: In reply to that question, Mr. Speaker, may I say this. I have reviewed the various answers given and statements made by myself since February 20, 1959. On February 20, 1959, as reported on page 1221 of Hansard, I set forth the views of the Canadian government with respect to this matter, and they remain unchanged. At that time I set forth, as I say, that the full potential of these defensive weapons is achieved
only when they are armed with nuclear warheads, and that of course was referring to Bomarc and other defensive weapons.
I followed that statement by a complete statement on January 18, 1960, in which I used these words, which are to be found on page 73 of Hansard:
In these circumstances negotiations are proceeding with the United States in order that the necessary weapons can he made available for Canadian defence units if and when they are required. I cannot comment in detail on these negotiations but I wish to state that arrangements for the safeguarding and security of all such weapons in Canada will be subject to Canadian approval and consent.
I want to make it abundantly clear that nuclear weapons will not be used by the Canadian forces except as the Canadian government decides and in the manner approved by the Canadian government. Canada retains its full freedom of choice and decision.
Since that time there have been continuing negotiations. By that I mean discussions between the representatives of the two countries. I am in no position to advise that there has been any determination made as a result of these discussions which would permit as yet of any negotiation taking place as between the Department of External Affairs and the department of state of the United States.


Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: A supplementary question. I wonder if the Prime Minister could say whether the government has given consideration to abandoning these negotiations and adopting a policy of opposition to nuclear weapons on Canadian soil?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, in so far as general policy is concerned we are always in this position. On the one hand we are desirous of attaining disarmament; on the other hand we have to discharge our responsibility of ensuring to the maximum degree the security of the Canadian people. So far as that is concerned, discussions are taking place with respect to the Goose Bay and Harmon air bases, where an endeavour is being made to arrive at a formula which will ensure that Canadians in those bases shall exercise joint control. In other words, so far as these two United States leased bases are concerned, negotiations are continuing with respect thereto.
Beyond that I simply point out that as the hon. gentleman fully realizes, this is a subject which has exercised the minds of people

Inquiries of the Ministry everywhere in the world. Only the other day in the United Kingdom the leader of the Labour party, Right Hon. Hugh Gaitskell, if I might summarize what he stated, accepted the need of nuclear defence and also the fact that the onus for nuclear defence must rest upon the United States.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask the Prime Minister a question based on his reply and based also on the statement made by the Minister of National Defence to the effect that at the present time negotiations are proceeding with the United States in connection with the storage by Canadian forces of atomic weapons in Canada for use either by United States or Canadian forces. My question is, in this connection is the Department of External Affairs participating in any way and, if not, what department is conducting these negotiations.


John George Diefenbaker: The use of the word "negotiations" is, of course, a material part of the question as framed by the hon. gentleman. What is taking place is that discussions are continuing between the Department of National Defence and the United States authorities in regard to this matter. When any basic agreement is arrived at in respect of these discussions then, of course, the Department of External Affairs will enter the picture and make the necessary negotiations to the end that notes may be exchanged.


Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: In view of the statement by the Prime Minister that the Department of External Affairs is not actually a party to the negotiations in the sense that the right hon. gentleman has now paraphrased those arrangements, is it not a fact, however, that there is a representative of the Department of External Affairs who has taken part in some of the discussions between the two defence departments?


John George Diefenbaker: There will always be representatives of the various departments concerned, but the specific question asked was on the subject of negotiations.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I thank the Prime Minister for that answer. May I ask him which minister is in charge of these negotiations. Is it the Minister of National Defence or the Secretary of State for External Affairs?


John George Diefenbaker: In so far as the discussions are concerned the responsibility must necessarily be that of the Minister of National Defence, whose officers meet with their corresponding numbers in the United States and place before them the stand taken by the Canadian government, which is of the essence of any possible agreement in the future,


namely that if and when the Canadian government should decide to equip its forces with nuclear weapons, those weapons would be under Canadian control and would be used in Canada only as the result of a decision by the Canadian government.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, can the Secretary of State for External Affairs advise the house whether Canada has yet concluded the agreement with the United States with respect to the control and use of atomic weapons?


Hon. Howard C. Green (Secretary of Slale for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I think that subject has already been fairly well dealt with this morning. The negotiations with the United States concerning the United States leased bases have not yet been completed.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister whether the Minister of National Defence has reported to the cabinet in respect of these negotiations, and whether any decision has been taken?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have already made it perfectly clear that no decision has been arrived at. This is a subject that requires continuing consideration having regard to all the circumstances, on the one hand the need of assuring security and on the other the maintenance of that spirit toward disarmament which has characterized this government. When a decision is made, as I have said on more than one occasion, it will be brought to the attention of the house immediately.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: I wish to ask a question of the Postmaster General, a question which is most appropriate on the day when we continue our debate concerning human rights and freedoms.
Has the attention of the minister been drawn to a news item in this morning's Globe and Mail entitled "Opening of Mail by Post Offices Under Fire", wherein the Sarnia chamber of commerce expresses deep concern that in recent months several thousand letters mailed by and to Canadians have been intercepted and opened by the Canada post office?
Would the minister inform the house whether this report is correct and, if so, would he tell us the reason for opening this mail?


Hon. W. M. Hamilton (Postmaster General):: My attention has not been drawn to this item, and I doubt whether the house would allow me to confirm or deny newspaper reports in any case. However, letters passing through the Canadian post office are not intercepted and opened unless the address discloses that they are connected with something that is illegal. Second, even in these circumstances they are only opened where there is no address on the outside of the envelope which would permit such letters to be returned to the senders.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: May 1
direct to the Secretary of State for Externa) Affairs a question which I asked on Friday in connection with the confiscation of certain Canadian property in Cuba. Can the minister say whether Canada has made any protest against this action? I note by the morning press that the confiscation is now complete.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, there has been no protest made. It so happens that the real ownership of this refinery is in the United Kingdom and the Netherlands.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, the information I have is that the particular company referred to in the Friday morning press is a Canadian company with a subsidiary in Cuba.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, evidently this is a holding company registered in Canada which is owned in the United Kingdom and the Netherlands. The hon. member will realize that the Shell interests are essentially British and Dutch.


Lionel Chevrier: If it is incorporated in Canada, it is a Canadian corporation.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the reported disappearance of a United States reconnaissance plane close to the northern coast of the U.S.S.R., can the minister inform the house whether this plane took off from an airfield in Canada or passed over Canadian territory at any point in its mission? If the answer is in the affirmative, why?
79951-0-357
Inquiries of the Ministry


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I received a copy of this question just as I was coming into the chamber.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I apologize.


Howard Charles Green: This plane was lost a great many thousands of miles from Canada, and I am afraid I shall have to make inquiries.



DISARMAMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that Canada previously indicated its support of the view that disarmament discussions should be referred to the disarmament commission of the United Nations, may I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether in the light of the statement made by the secretary general of the United Nations with regard to this matter, the government wishes to modify its position.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member, as he so often does, has based his question on statements which he may think are facts but which in reality are far removed from the actual facts. In answering the question today I am not admitting that his premises are correct. The Canadian government has taken the stand throughout that the United Nations must be kept connected just as closely as possible with the disarmament negotiations. As the hon. member knows, there was a representative of the United Nations in Geneva during those discussions. Now that the negotiations have been broken up in such an irresponsible manner by the five eastern nations represented on the 10-member committee, it obviously becomes necessary that a report be made to the United Nations disarmament commission which, of course, is made up of all the nations who are members of the United Nations. We hope that such a report will be made at as early a date as possible.



HARBOURS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Taylor (Vancouver-Burrard):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the extensive waterfront fire in Vancouver last evening, would the minister expedite his department's decision as to what help Vancouver might expect in the way of increased fire boat protection?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, we are always very agreeable to carry on discussions with the municipal authorities in Vancouver about this or any other matter they might wish to discuss with us.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. H. McMillan (Welland):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Would the minister care to comment on an article in Saturday's Globe and Mail to the effect that Canada recently lost $101 million through the operations of the exchange stabilization fund, in keeping the Canadian dollar above par with the U.S. dollar?


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I saw that article. It is an article that purports simply to be a paraphrase or to give the substance of an article appearing in a foreign periodical. Of the foreign periodical I have only this to say, and it applies to this article on their part as well as to others they have published. I do not know how a publication could go on publishing articles about Canada which are based on such total ignorance of Canada and Canada's policies. I would think it has got almost past the point now where that publication could offer ignorance as an excuse for writing the type of misleading propaganda of which they have been guilty.
As to this latest misleading statement on their part I have only this to say. The operations with respect to the foreign exchange control fund which have been carried on recently were completely in accord with the method of operation carried on by the Bank of Canada on behalf of the Minister of Finance ever since this government came into office, and prior to that time by the former government. There was no change in policy or in the basis of operation. These were simply normal operations carried out with a view to reducing the fluctuation in the exchange rate from day to day.



DOMINION DAY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Alexis Caron (Hull):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State. Will the Secretary of State explain to the house the protocol followed on Dominion day, or can he give us any reason which required

the Prime Minister to take the salute in preference to the representative of Her Majesty the Queen of Canada?


Hon. Leon Balcer (Acting Secretary of State):: I am no expert on protocol, but I will make the proper inquiry from the office. Offhand, as far as the circumstances are concerned, I would say that since the Governor General was away from the capital it was proper for the Prime Minister to take the salute.


Alexis Pierre Caron: I have a supplementary question. Knowing that the Governor General was in Ottawa that day I would ask the Secretary of State whether it is the intention to make Dominion day Diefenbaker day?


Mr. Graffiey:: Shame.


Some hon. Members:: Cheap.


Mr. Marlineau:: You are as small as you look.



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hubert Badanai (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Can he explain why the expenses of the wife of a delegate to a convention are not deductible at present for income tax purposes? Will the minister consider making such expenses deductible-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member has misconceived the time that would be appropriate to deal with this matter.



ATOMIC ENERGY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, arising out of the widespread support, common to all Canadians, of any measures that can be adopted to provide international control of the peaceful use of atomic energy. Can the minister report on the progress that is being made in discussions with international atomic energy agencies to establish the first international safeguards on the peaceful use of nuclear energy? Can he say what position will be taken at the coming conference at the end of September?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the best place to discuss this question would

be when my estimates are under review. 1 shall be very glad to try to get the information for the hon. member.


Hazen Robert Argue: Can the minister not take this as notice and make a reply tomorrow? I do not know how soon his estimates may be before the house, but this matter is of current interest.


Howard Charles Green: I hope the estimates will be up this week.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. A. Hardie (Mackenzie River):: should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister received a report from the commission which was set up 13 months ago to study and report on a favourable route for the railway to Great Slave lake? If not, can he tell us whether the commission or the government is stalling on the report?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the report in question is now available for distribution, and I hope that copies will be tabled in the house in a day or so.


Donald Methuen Fleming: that the house go into committee of supply.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Flynn in the chair.
The estimates of the following departments were first taken up and entered for consideration:



LEGISLATION

[Stage Direction]
The Speaker of the Senate-
175. Allowance in lieu of residence, $3,000.

[Stage Direction]
308. Payment, notwithstanding anything in the Financial Administration Act or the Senate and House of Commons Act respecting the independence of parliament, to each member of the Queen's privy council for Canada who is a minister for whom no salary or allowance in addition to the allowances under section 33 and section 44 of the Senate and House of Commons Act is provided (the acceptance of which shall not render such member ineligible or disqualify him as a member of the House of Commons) of a salary of $7,500 per annum and pro rata for any period less than a year, $7,500.

[Stage Direction]
383. Departmental administration, $311,264.
Proceedings reported.
.	79951-0-357J
4. 1960	5657
Human Rights HUMAN RIGHTS

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, July 1, consideration of the motion of Mr. Diefenbaker for second reading of Bill No. C-79, to provide for the recognition and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms.
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, in the comparatively few minutes I had on Friday to deal with this very important matter I made clear, I hope, that we on this side approve the principle of this bill and will support its second reading so it can be sent to a committee, where we hope changes can be made in it which will make it a more adequate bill to accomplish the purposes that we all have in mind.
In that connection, Mr. Speaker, I have already made three suggestions concerning the improvement of this bill by amending the War Measures Act, which will give greater protection to Canadian citizens where perhaps they need more protection than in non-emergency circumstances.
We feel that the importance of this bill to accomplish the purposes we all have in mind, in its present form at least, has been very greatly exaggerated by the Prime Minister and that exaggeration of its significance can only mislead and raise perhaps unrealistic hopes, indeed leading to later disillusionment. The test of the government's objectivity in this matter, of its real appreciation of the importance and, indeed, of the complexity of the subject, will be in examining the procedure followed concerning' it and judging this against the procedures promised and the assurances given and the performance so far.
Let us look at the record in this regard, Mr. Speaker. The Prime Minister mentioned the desirability of a bill of rights and his decision to introduce such a bill into the House of Commons during the election campaigns of 1957 and 1958. In accordance with those election statements he did, indeed, introduce such a bill on September 5, 1958, some 19 or 20 months ago. This bill was limited in scope and, in its effect, declaratory only.
It should be made clear that that bill, and indeed the bill before the house today, bear no relationship whatever, notwithstanding what the Prime Minister now says, to the impressive and indeed eloquent proposals which he used to make and which he has brought to our attention already in the discussion of this bill, proposals which he used to make when he was in opposition about an

Human Rights
effective and comprehensive measure to protect our rights and freedoms. In those days he thought such a measure should be binding on all Canadian legislatures, thus protecting all Canadians against all acts of all governments which violated those rights. Indeed, in those days the Prime Minister used to get quite impatient with those who pointed out the constitutional difficulties in this field because of the division of authority and jurisdiction as between federal and provincial legislatures, each of which, of course, is sovereign in its own field.
I had something to say in the house on September 5, 1958 on the first reading of the other bill, and I ventured to quote some of the statements made by the Prime Minister in 1947 concerning what should be done in connection with the protection of rights and freedoms through parliamentary action. In those days, and subsequently, the Prime Minister proposed that representatives of the provinces should be called in so that the final result would be, he hoped, a joint federal-provincial bill of rights for Canada.
On May 16, 1947 in this house he said that human freedoms were not circumscribed by territorial considerations and he advocated, in addition to a comprehensive bill of rights, the repeal of the War Measures Act and a revision of the Official Secrets Act which presumes guilt unless an individual can prove innocence. He could not do those things earlier because, as he explained to the house on September 5, 1958 he was on the opposition side with a small membership. At this time, as he put it and it was certainly true, he said he was on the government side with no small membership. There is, therefore, no obstacle of that kind now in the way of a more comprehensive bill than the one we had before us, a more comprehensive approach to parliamentary protection in this field.
Furthermore, the Prime Minister once argued that if there were doubts about federal jurisdiction and what could be covered by a bill or an amendment to the constitution, if that procedure were to be followed, then let the supreme court give an opinion. On March 14, 1958, during the election campaign of that year, he was quoted as saying as follows, and I quote from the press report of his speech:
The Supreme Court of Canada would be asked to rule whether Ottawa has the power under the constitution to bring in such a measure. We want such a ruling so that we will encounter no constitutional obstacle when we bring such a bill before parliament.
Again on March 18, four days later, in Vancouver he was quoted as saying:
The Prime Minister explained that the bill of rights would be submitted first to the supreme court in the form of a reference.

We know that this was not done. Indeed, we have before us in this bill no proposal of any kind for a constitutional amendment even in respect of matters under federal jurisdiction alone. What we have is a normal piece of legislation to be passed in the ordinary way with ordinary effect and which, of course, could be abrogated or changed by any future parliament in the ordinary way. Without recourse to any of the procedures that were promised some time ago, this limited and purely declaratory bill was introduced. I am now talking about the first introduction in 1958. The Prime Minister asked for its careful examination by all who were interested, and indicated that suggestions would be welcomed. In his statement at that time in 1958, as reported at page 4644 of Hansard, the Prime Minister had this to say:
I can only hope that Canadians as a whole will give to parliament the benefit of their suggestions and ideas in the next few months so we shall be able to make such amendments in the bill to be presented to the next parliament-
That was the parliament of 1959.
-as will still the heart stirrings of those who fear for freedom in our country-[DOT]
Then he concluded his speech on this occasion by saying:
I hope we will be enabled next session-[DOT]
That is the session of 1959.
-to discuss this question again fully and completely, and that out of the counsel of parliament and the representations of our fellow Canadians, whatever changes should be made in this bill of rights can be made in the bill then to be presented,-
At that time, Mr. Speaker, when I ventured to speak-and by agreement there were only three speeches, one by the leader of each party-I had these suggestions to make. As reported at page 4652 of Hansard of 1958- and I mention this so that we can see whether any of these suggestions have been carried out-I said this:
... I have only three suggestions to make, one of which was put forward this morning by the Prime Minister on behalf of the government; first, that there should be the widest possible circulation of the bill to organizations which have shown an interest in this question and to individuals such as deans of law schools with requests for their views and comments-
I do not know whether that has been done, although I know that in the intervening period the government has received suggestions and comments. Then I continued:
-second, that there should be set up next session-
That is last session.
-to consider this bill a joint committee of both houses with broad powers, including the power to summon witnesses; third, and this is something even more important that might be done, that we should try to secure the support and co-operation of the provinces for any Canadian action in this field. Indeed, as a result of consultation with the

provinces it might be possible to widen the action so as to include both the federal government and provincial governments in a joint declaration on individual rights and freedoms. Then indeed we would have a powerful symbol.
We know now, Mr. Speaker, what has happened or rather what has not happened. The provinces have not been approached and were not consulted. Nothing was done in the last session of parliament. Then there was the Prime Minister's promise made to the annual meeting of the Canadian Bar Association in Vancouver last September. In a statement at page 94 in the printed record of that convention the Prime Minister said this, and I would point out that we are now into September of 1959:
From the chairman's agenda I note that one subject for discussion this morning is the bill of rights. It is my intention to have the measure to provide for a bill of rights introduced early in the next session of parliament-
That is the present session of parliament, nothing having been done in 1959. The Prime Minister continued:
[DOT]-and to have it submitted to a committee of both houses of parliament.
He also had this to say:
No one occupying the position that I do can overstate the benefits that come when the people of the nation give me and those associated with me, and through them to parliament, the benefit of their counsel and advice. Parliament will welcome any suggestions from the Canadian Bar Association in connection with the prospective legislation on the bill of rights. Indeed, the more attention given to an analysis of the bill of rights, the more beneficial will be the net result when the legislation is brought before parliament.
At this convention a resolution was passed on a report by the civil liberties section submitted to the bar convention. It indicated that in view of the assurance of the Prime Minister that this bill would be submitted to a joint committee, perhaps the kind of analysis which they were about to make might be superseded because of the possibility of their appearance before this joint committee. In the report to the conference-and I quote from page 192-the chairman of the civil liberties section, Mr. David W. Mundell, had this to say on behalf of his committee:
As explained to the attending members-
That is the members of the civil liberties section.
-at the beginning of the first session, Mr. Diefenbaker's bill is no longer a practical proposal since it will go before a joint committee of the house and Senate where it will obviously be changed from the ground up.
Therefore in the resolution of the civil liberties section, which was adopted, this committee came to this conclusion in that resolution:
Human Rights
Be it resolved, therefore, that this section on civil liberties recommends to the council and executive that appropriate steps be taken to ensure that the views of the association be presented to the joint committee as the opportunity may arise.
It would be interesting to find out whether any such opportunity is now about to arise in view of the fact that we have reached July and that it is not now possible, I understand-and the Prime Minister will correct me if I am wrong-to set up a joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons. Certainly no such joint committee as promised was set up previously in this session, although that procedure would have been possible. The Prime Minister decided not to follow that course but to postpone the introduction of this bill until July 1, 1960, Dominion day, when it could be brought in in the morning prior to the trooping of the colours in the afternoon.
As I have said, this bill has already been examined very carefully outside parliament during these intervening months. In that examination I think it is correct to say that the purposes of the bill have been universally applauded; but the reception given to the text of the bill which was introduced in September, and which is substantially the same as the bill we are considering today except for some changes, some of which are I think helpful and some perhaps can be considered retrogressive, was cool and in large part critical. Many suggestions have been made for improvement, particularly by the bar association, whose views were embodied in the March, 1959 edition of the Canadian Bar Review which devoted itself entirely to this bill, and which views certainly bear very careful examination by anyone who is interested in an objective analysis of the purposes and provisions of the bill.
In addition, a very impressive submission was made to the government on April 29, 1959 by 30 reputable and important Canadian associations, and that submission should be also carefully examined. Yet you will find very little of it in the amended bill. Indeed this is very surprising in view of what the Prime Minister said in his broadcast the other night, that this present bill contains some additions which have resulted from the views expressed in order to strengthen the guarantee of individual rights and freedom.
Anyone who studies the views expressed by the experts and the organizations will not be impressed by the changes made in this bill in order to meet those views. That is all the more surprising when we consider that such a measure as this needs the widest possible basis of public support in order that it might achieve its maximum usefulness and value. It is no great inducement for individuals and

Human Rights
organizations to come before a committee of this house, which presumably is about to be set up, and repeat their views when their suggestions have been so completely ignored by this government.
Then, Mr. Speaker, there is the question of consultation with the provinces. So far as we can ascertain, and we have tried to find out, there has been a complete failure to consult with the provinces and to explore the possibility of a jointly agreed declaration which might be inserted in the constitution. As I have just indicated, I urged the government in September of 1958 to conduct such consultations, and numerous groups and organizations and individuals have also urged that this course be followed. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that it cannot be denied that this would be the best course to follow.
The Prime Minister as recently as last Friday, repeating what he had said previously, threw up smokescreen of the impossibility of infringing upon provincial jurisdiction in this field. No one is suggesting that there should be any infringement upon provincial jurisdiction in any field. Such a binding and collective declaration would not involve any transfer of jurisdiction from one sphere of government to the other. It would mean that individual rights and freedoms would be as fully protected as they can be in this country by legislative action once the government has decided to proceed by way of such legislative action. Federal action alone will not cover the most important sector of human rights and fundamental freedoms under our constitution.
The Prime Minister also attempts to justify his failure-


John George Diefenbaker: Would the hon. gentleman tell me what particular constitutional freedoms come under provincial jurisdiction? The hon. member made the statement that it would not cover that question.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I made the statement that the whole field of rights and liberties falls under two jurisdictions, the provincial and the federal. Surely the Prime Minister, who is a lawyer-I am not-must know that the provinces are very jealous of the authority given to them by the constitution in this field; and if that is true, then federal action alone will not cover all the matters which come under human rights and fundamental freedoms. It does not cover legal rights or all the constitutional rights, and it certainly does not cover economic rights.
Surely, Mr. Speaker, it is a very unimpressive attempt to justify the failure to make any efforts of any kind to consult the provinces to say that such consultations would not be

successful, that the record of the past shows that, and that they would postpone indefinitely any action on this front. That is surely a poor excuse for not making at least an attempt.
Mr. Speaker, Saskatchewan, as we know, already has a bill of rights. The new Quebec premier, Mr. Lesage, had already stated more than once during the election campaign that he intended to present such legislation for the province of Quebec. No opposition has been expressed from any other province against such consultation and against at least the possibility of united action in this field. There is going to be a federal-provincial meeting at the end of this month in Ottawa; so why was it not possible, once it was decided to postpone this matter until July, to put this whole question on the agenda of that meeting for at least preliminary discussion? If no progress were made then it would be possible for the government to proceed with its own bill at the next session.
Well, Mr. Speaker, the government has ignored all these suggestions and has done nothing until July 1, 1960. The government even refuses to put in the constitution provisions-and they are in this bill-covering federal matters only, matters over which it is claiming full authority in this field. The excuse given by the Prime Minister, or the reason if you like, was that it would be no more difficult to change a constitutional provision of this kind than to change ordinary legislation.
That is true; technically it is correct. But what an argument to be used, Mr. Speaker, by one who admits that the main value of this bill is its moral and symbolic value; that its main importance is the deterrent and warning effect it would have on future parliaments which might be tempted to pass laws which would affect the rights mentioned in this bill. If that is its main value, surely that value would be greatly increased by putting these federal provisions in our constitution and giving them the prestige, the sanctity and the significance which would go with inclusion in the constitution. The government, however, will have none of this. The Prime Minister prefers to introduce an ordinary legislative measure-that is, ordinary in its procedural and constitutional significance-at the close, or what we still hope to be the close, of this session.
From this, Mr. Speaker, you can assess the purposes of those sponsoring this bill as a great national, non-partisan move in the field of human rights by the flat refusal of the government to adopt any other procedure; by the flat refusal of the government to adopt any other procedure even though that would have been better in every way, except perhaps

from the viewpoint of a government determined to push this measure through in the dying days of a long and exhausting session.
I ask, therefore, is this carrying out the assurance given in this parliament on September 5, 1958 which I have just read? Is this discharging the Prime Minister's commitment to the Canadian Bar Association to set up a joint committee of both houses, which I have also read?
Let us look for a moment at the bill itself and since this is second reading, the principles embodied in it. As I have said, there is no difference of opinion in the house about the importance of protecting and promoting human rights and fundamental freedoms. We all of us know that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. We know also that it is the responsibility of freedom to provide among other things security for its citizens, including basic economic and social security, which cannot be said to exist in any country in which large numbers of its citizens cannot find work, as is the case in this country in July, 1960. Freedom from want and from the demoralization and deprivations of unemployment is an important part of the whole concept of freedom in our modern age, but there has been no mention of this by any spokesman for the government so far.
Furthermore, freedoms are not guaranteed by words, even words in a constitution, let alone by words in an ordinary, normal act of parliament. Earlier as well as contemporary history is littered with the wreckage of high-sounding declarations and bills of rights which were to guarantee so very much and last forever. But as Professor McWinney of the Toronto law faculty, writing in the Canadian Bar Review from which I have already read, reminded us, "Words alone are frail packages for human hopes".
Incorruptible and respected courts enforcing laws made by free men in parliament assembled and dealing with specific matters, with specific sanctions to enforce their observance; these are the best guarantee of our rights and liberties. This is the tried and tested British way, and this is a better course to follow than the mere pious affirmation of general principles, to which some political societies are addicted.


John George Diefenbaker: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question? Does he regard the international declaration of human rights, which is in no way enforceable, as one of those wrecks?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, I do not. The international declaration on human rights adopted by the United Nations is a great landmark in international progress in this field, and
Human Rights
can be used as a means of advancement by those countries which do not yet possess human rights. But all those rights are, I think, already realized to as great an extent in this country as in any country in the world. What I refer to as the wreckage of high-sounding declarations are the declarations made by some countries in this world at the present time, and in the nineteenth century, about the inviolability of human rights and freedom, and then the refusal to implement any of those declarations by legislative or policy action.
Surely the Prime Minister, as a student of history, must know that there have been these wreckages throughout history. Indeed,
I have myself heard people talking about freedom and human rights in the United Nations and attacking a country such as France, which has been in the forefront of progress in this direction, because it has not gone as far as it should, according to those delegations; and those delegations came from countries at least one of which recognized legal slavery but which had subscribed formally to the international document on human rights. That is what I mean by the wreckage of high-sounding declarations.
Anyway, the problem is not whether we should protect our rights, but how to do it most effectively. This bill, it cannot be denied, cuts across our traditional practices. That does not necessarily make it wrong, because conditions change and circumstances alter; but it does underline the necessity of giving this measure the most careful scrutiny inasmuch as it is such a departure. We all recognize that the preservation of our rights and freedoms, as the very foundation of our culture and our civilization, depends primarily on our community itself, on its manners and morals, on its constant willingness to fight against prejudices and discrimination and arbitrary power. While this is true-and the experience of many other countries shows that a written law alone cannot adequately protect human rights-we agree that such protection may, in present circumstances, require from time to time new legislative and judicial safeguards.
There is, however, a wide range of opinion as to what those legislative safeguards should be. There are those who believe that existing provisions are adequate and that a bill of rights would not only be useless but might conceivably be dangerous. Professor Scott, who is an authority in this field, whether or not we agree with all his views-


Paul Joseph James Martin: A great authority.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, he has devoted many years of study to these questions-Professor Scott sums up that view, without agreeing

Human Rights
with it, when he says in his "Civil Liberties and Canadian Federalism", at page 13:
With Magna Carta in the background and Dicey's rule of law in the foreground, we have not seemed to need any further safeguard for civil liberties. And in truth, when we look at other constitutions with bills of rights in their written texts, not excepting the American constitution, and compare the rights of citizens under them with what has commonly prevailed in Canada, we have not felt that we were under any particular disadvantage.


John George Diefenbaker: Is that his view?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I said that is one view, and it is a very good summary of the viewpoint of those people who accept it. Professor Scott has other views and he would go much further, as I shall point out later, than is gone in this bill. That is one extreme, the view of people who do not think we should proceed with this project at all but should stick to the tried and trusted procedures and not worry about bills of rights. At the other extreme are those people who are so anxious to have a bill of rights that they are ready to accept and support any bill on the ground that a bad bill is better than no bill; that a piece of bread is better than no loaf.
We on this side do not support either of these extreme positions. If we are to have a bill of rights not only to protect our own freedom but to serve as an inspiring symbol of the values we need to protect, it must be a good and effective bill for that purpose. We do not think that just any bill, irrespective of its limitations and inadequacy, will necessarily serve a useful purpose. The Prime Minister described his own bill in September, 1958 as a first step, and he confirmed that description on Friday, advancing the view that a first step, however small and timid, was better than nothing. Professor Scott, in the lectures from which I have already quoted, warned us against the danger of such a view when he said:
It seems to be assumed that a first step is always a good thing. Presumably a first step is a good thing if it is taking us closer to a desired goal and will be followed by a second step. But if the taking of the first step confuses the issue and discourages people from any further effort then it may not be a good thing. I am frankly afraid that this is the position we may be facing.
It will be our purpose on this side to support the motion to send this bill to a committee even at this late date, and do what we can in that committee to make this bill a more adequate and suitable one than it is now for the purposes for which it is intended. Certainly its present inadequacy has been exposed by many who have examined and commented upon it.
Perhaps particular attention-and I referred to this earlier-should be given to the criticisms contained in the special number of

the Canadian Bar Review of March, 1959, criticisms which apply to this present bill as much as to the earlier version. If you read the articles in this review and other articles written by men quite as sensitive as any hon. member of this house to the need to protect our rights and liberties, the Prime Minister's claims for this bill become extravagant and excessive.
Let us look at what some of these objective, non-partisan commentators have to say about some of the principles and provisions of the bill. Let us take only one paragraph from the article in this review by Professor Bora Laskin, of the University of Toronto, an authority in this field. I am sure it will not be suggested that Professor Laskin has any political axe to grind in making this comment:
Committed though I am to the thesis which is implicit in Bill No. C-60, the document is disappointing in its approach, unnecessarily limited in its application and ineffective in its substance. It is disappointing in its approach because it does not provide a constitutionally-protected charter of liberties. It is merely a timid and tepid affirmation of a political and social tradition which, for all practical purposes, carries us no farther than the prevailing tradition in unitary Great Britain. It is unnecessarily limited in its application because (1) it takes an extremely narrow view of the constitutional values that are involved in the promulgation of a bill of rights and (2) it confines such force as it has to the federal or central level of government, leaving the provinces unaffected by its provisions. It is ineffective in its substance because, taken on its own terms, its grandiloquence of expression is set in so narrow an operating framework as to rob the expression of any substantial value in concrete cases.
I could quote at length from articles in this publication by authorities taking that same stand. Indeed, I think there is only one article in this whole review that supports the bill in the form in which it was presented to them and to us, a form which is substantially the same as that which we have now before us.


John George Diefenbaker: Would the hon. gentleman allow a question? In view of his reference to this statement that the provinces would be left unaffected by the bill of rights in its present form, will the hon. gentleman tell the house why it was that during the long period in which he was secretary of state for external affairs he did not bring before the house for approval by Canada the United Nations declaration of human rights?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the question the Prime Minister asks me is why did I not bring before the House of Commons the United Nations declaration of human rights when I was a member of the cabinet. That declaration, it is known, caused some hesitation on the part of the government of that day because it included matters which were

within provincial jurisdiction. This hesitation made it impossible for us to have accepted an international bill of rights without provincial approval; but it did not prevent the government of Canada at that time accepting the United Nations declaration of human rights.
That was done; that was accepted by the Canadian representatives. It was possible for any hon. member of the house, and particularly for hon. members of the opposition, to have put on the order paper at any time during those years a private member's motion to have this matter discussed. The government did not initiate any such discussion true, but the present Prime Minister and other hon. members of the opposition of that day did not take the action open to them.


John George Diefenbaker: I asked the government about it regularly, did I not?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I know that the Prime Minister asked for discussion of this matter inside and outside the house, but were steps taken by the opposition to bring about a discussion? It could have been done if there existed at that time the kind of anxiety to have it done that is being expressed now.


William Heward Grafftey: Have you contacted the provinces?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, indeed we have. My complaint is that this government is not making any effort to contact the provinces. The government has had two and one half years at least in which to get in touch with the provinces on this matter and so far as we know-and the Prime Minister can deny it if it is not correct-there has been no step taken in that direction.


William Heward Grafftey: That has nothing to do with the question I asked.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The Prime Minister said that the really significant importance of this bill is the warning that is contained in it to future parliaments not to pass legislation infringing the freedoms and rights which are declared to exist in this bill. The hon. gentleman knows, of course, as we all know, that it cannot bind any future parliament. It is an ordinary piece of legislation in that sense. When I use the word "ordinary" I refer only to the technical use of the word. But while he says it cannot bind future parliaments, it will make it much more difficult for future parliaments to infringe the provisions of this bill if they feel inclined to do so.
If parliament in this country does in fact need this kind of warning we are in a bad way. Surely the fact is that no Canadian parliament would ever lightly take action of the kind we are now being warned against
Human Rights
except perhaps in time of apprehended war or emergency under the War Measures Act, which the Prime Minister and the government are not intending to change along the lines we advocated on Friday but are suggesting that the only change to be made is to have the proclamation bringing it into effect discussable in parliament.
Surely it is obvious that a warning of the kind embodied in this particular bill can be only as effective as the self-restraint, selfcontrol and self-imposed discipline of the representatives of the people make it. In our parliamentary system it is this on which we must rely. As Professor McWhinney states in the Canadian Bar Review article of March, 1959:
If the new Canadian bill of rights happens to correspond to deeply felt popular sentiments, no legislative majorities in the future are likely to interfere with it.
If it does not so correspond-then no bill now will be an adequate protection against legislative action.
In short, I doubt whether the wrong kind of parliament would be more hesitant to pass the wrong kind of legislation merely because this proposed bill of rights had become law, especially as it would be ordinary law and not embodied in our constitution. Why should a future parliament be more impressed by and respectful of this bill than it would be of historic charters of our liberties such as the Magna Carta, the petition of right of 1627, the habeas corpus act of 1640 and the bill of rights of 1689, all of which are now part of the fundamental law and heritage of Canada?
It can be argued that a reaffirmation in law of these fundamental principles will do no harm and will, in fact, do some good. Perhaps it will; yet it must be emphasized again that it fill not bind any future parliament, even though it is designed to limit and check wrong tendencies in future parliaments. It must be re-emphasized that if it is to have that deterrent effect the language of the bill must be impressive, effective and beyond doubt or uncertainty.
A distinguished lawyer in this country, Mr. Carter, writing in the Canadian Bar Review, of March, 1959 at page 261, on this idea that parliament must be warned in a bill of this kind, had this to say:
How much better it would be to trust parliament and the courts as they have been trusted in the past to modify the law relating to such private rights as circumstances and public opinion require, and not put this part of the law in a strait jacket of the model of 1959. It will be a sorry day for Canada when parliament is so distrustful of itself and its successors that it surrenders its power to change the law. Of course, the idea is absurd. If parliament in the future should decide that the law should be changed, it would simply preface its enactment by the formula

Human Rights
"Notwithstanding anything contained in the bill of rights". The prohibition in the bill against abrogation, abridgement and infringement of rights, in other words, is idle and to the layman misleading.
Well, Mr. Speaker, legal arguments aside -and I know there can be legal arguments lor and against the value of this bill-this bill, we have been told by the Prime Minister, transcends these legal considerations. It is to serve as a beacon; a red light against parliamentary carelessness or arbitrary conduct; a symbol; a great charter of liberty, or at the very least the first chapter in a charter of liberty. But if it is to be the document that we have been told by the Prime Minister it is meant to be, it should not only be broad and deep in its meaning but should be inspiring in its language; something that will stir the pulse, stimulate our national patriotism, something that could be read and be remembered by school children on July 1-


John George Diefenbaker: Does the bill of rights of the United States, or of India, do that?


Lester Bowles Pearson: -as one of the charters of our growing nation; something reaffirming our dedication to freedom and to great ideals; something, in short, like the declaration of the United Nations on human rights and fundamental freedoms in the international sphere, in the kind of language that should be accepted by the Canadian government.


John George Diefenbaker: Not by parliament,
because you would not bring it before parliament.


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: Parliament could not deal with it.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The Prime Minister must know that this is an international declaration, not a law, not a convention, not anything that could be ratified by parliament. The Prime Minister must know, because at any time he wished during the years he has been in opposition he could have put a resolution on the order paper affirming our acceptance of and our dedication to the ideals in this declaration. He could have done so.
This value of the bill of rights, this symbolic, inspiring value, was, among other things, exactly what the 30 national groups and associations representing a large crosssection of the people of Canada asked for when they saw the Prime Minister, I think it was in April, 1959. In their submission, which I have before me and which I wish I had time to put on the record, they did include this paragraph:
This act we feel should contain an inspiring statement of the basic rights and liberties which are part of our inheritance and to which every

person in Canada is entitled. It should, we believe, be expressed in clear, beautiful and moving language. Language that will be understood and will make a lasting impression on our children in the schools, on new immigrants who come to Canada; on all Canadians when they hear it at meetings, in court, at worship, over the radio, or on television, or read it in the press or in books.
Does this bill do that? Read its ambiguous and uninspiring language. Is it the kind of urgent, moving appeal that will be listened to by school children, or even by adults? Read it. Is it a standard that can be raised high to which men and women of this country could repair when their liberties were threatened? Read it. Does it include any of the ideals, inspiration and noble words that might be used to make a declaration which, even without any binding legal effect, would nevertheless be a landmark in our history? Does it include any of the ideas, the proposals, the words submitted to the government in the last two years, by organizations and citizens, some of which I have just quoted? Yet the Prime Minister tells us that this dry, legal document which begins, "This part may be cited as the Canadian bill of rights" without any preamble; this legal document with these dry, unexciting words, is to be the Canadian Magna Charta.
If the Prime Minister feels that way why did he not put in the preamble something worthy of the high place he gives this bill, as is done in the submission I have just mentioned? In committee we shall try to repair some of these omissions and inadequacies. Detailed criticism of the omissions and inadequacies of this bill will be given by other members on this side; and particularly, as I think will be appropriate, when the committee is set up we certainly hope to examine very, very carefully clause 2 of the bill.
The Prime Minister makes high claims for the significance of this clause. Professor Laskin, however, in his article has this to say:
Nothing except repetition is gained by setting out in the proposed bill what may be termed common law postulates of our criminal law. The postulates would not survive a deviating amendment of the code.
This clause merely declares; it does not guarantee. It creates no new offence, it imposes no penalty, no sanctions of any kind for a breach of any of its declarations. Any individual who claims his freedoms or rights have been interfered with by anyone else will be in the same position as if this bill never became law, notwithstanding the Prime Minister's eloquent assurances on television.


John George Diefenbaker: That is not a fact.


Murdo William Martin: That is a fact.


Lester Bowles Pearson: No enforcement machinery is set up, as I have said, though the Prime Minister has often talked about setting up some enforcement machinery; and in committee we may have something to say about the desirability of setting up at least some supervisory machinery.
It is true the Minister of Justice has to examine bills and regulations to ascertain whether they are inconsistent with the purposes and provisions of this legislation. In the earlier 1958 edition the Minister of Justice, under clause 4, was told "to examine legislation and regulations in order to ensure that the purpose and provisions of this part in relation thereto are fully carried out." Now, that language was pretty strong, and perhaps you could read some kind of sanction into that language; but as a result of the amendment in the present bill he does not have to examine these matters to ensure that the provisions are being carried out. All he has to do now is examine regulations and legislation to ascertain whether any of the provisions thereof are inconsistent with the purposes and provisions of this bill. That, Mr. Speaker, is a weakening of the earlier bill in regard to machinery to ensure, if it can be done, that it should be carried out.
Is the Minister of Justice accountable to parliament for the discharge of this particular duty? How do we deal with him if he fails?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Take out a writ of mandamus.


Lester Bowles Pearson: There is another clause of the bill into which the Prime Minister has read much, which instructs-and I am paraphrasing the language-judges to interpret the law now along certain lines. That, however, hardly goes beyond the ordinary canons of judicial interpretation. Surely it does not render null and void or qualify any laws, rules or orders incompatible with the declarations of this bill. As Professor Laskin said:
The injunction to the courts to construe an enactment in conformity with the bill would not enable the courts to ignore terms that ran counter to the bill.
I wonder how the Prime Minister reconciles that statement with what he said last Thursday evening and Friday morning. The other detailed provisions and questions will be dealt with by my colleagues.
There is something more important than these detailed provisions in sections 2 and 3, and that is the general confusion that may arise over the interpretation of these provisions by the courts. Is this bill-perhaps we will get an answer to this during the course of the debate-to be interpreted as legally operative to override provincial legislation that conflicts with the rights specifically
Human Rights
enumerated in section 2? The majority of the commentators on the bill whom I have been able to study think not, but some take the other view. If the former view is the right one, then by this bill we merely confirm, underline and emphasize the fact that there are fundamental and human rights in Canada on two different levels, federal and provincial. This has caused a great deal of anxiety in legal circles.
Perhaps on this point I might read from an article by Mr. David Mundell on the Canadian bill of rights included in the bar review at page 256. In this article, he is dealing with this particular point, and he says:
To some persons the bill is to be interpreted as legally operative to override provincial legislation. To others, since the language is in terms declaratory only and not directly mandatory and since section 3 is restricted to federal legislation, the bill is to be interpreted as intended to be restricted in its effective legal operation to federal legislation. Support has been given to this view by statements that have been made.
The intended effect of the bill should be made clear, to enact it knowing that a basic question of interpretation which can be avoided will arise at the outset, is undesirable. The adoption of the principle of the declaration appears to make it logical to give it its fullest possible legal effect as overriding inconsistent provincial legislation.
This is a very important point which certainly should be cleared up. It could have been cleared up if this bill or a draft had been submitted to the supreme court for an opinion, as the Prime Minister himself once thought should be done. Arising out of these views expressed by Mr. Mundell and others, the question was asked at the bar association meeting and in the committees which were dealing with this matter, and a recommendation was made to refer this to the supreme court for a decision on this vital question of constitutionality.
Well, Mr. Speaker, this is the new bill. The few changes that have been made from the old bill are, as I have suggested, not of major importance. One or two of them, I think, do extend the bill and are perhaps helpful from that point of view, but one or two of them are retrogressive in character. We ask ourselves, therefore, on July 4, I960, is this all we have to show; is this all the government has to show for the consideration presumably given from September, 1958 to July, 1960? Is this all the government has to show for all the submissions, all the evidence and all the statements that have been made concerning this matter?
I think it is also true to say, Mr. Speaker, that the few changes that have been introduced-in fact I know it is true to say______are
not the result of public hearings, because none have been held, or of examination by a committee of parliament, because none

Human Rights
has been set up. What a commentary that is on the government's public statements about the seriousness and importance of this subject for all Canadians.
I repeat that we on this side of the house do not underestimate the seriousness or importance of the subject in any way. We do criticize both the declaration and the bill, and the effectiveness of the government's handling of the whole matter once the Prime Minister and the government decided to proceed by way of legislation.	.
May I conclude, Mr. Speaker, with one or two very general and very short observations. In recent years the asserted claims of the individual on the state have been matched by his protests against the state's interference in his activities and in his private life, an interference which his own demands have made easier and in some cases inevitable. The state cannot provide services and support for the citizen without acquiring the power and authority which is necessary and desirable for that purpose. Put it another way; more social security, desirable and even necessary though that is, may often be the means to greater state powers, and the latter persistently press against the freedom and rights of citizens who are to benefit from these powers.
Now, that pressure is often embodied in masses of legislation and regulations which are required; often so great and complicated a mass that only with difficulty can it be reconciled to the equal necessity of defining and protecting the rights of an individual against the state from which he demands these services and this protection. This is the great dilemma of a democracy in the changing circumstances of today. Its resolution in the interests of the individual is not going to be easy whatever kind of legislative action we may or may not take. It will require careful and continuous watching and safeguarding by an alert and vigilant public opinion expressed in a very alert and vigilant parliament.
It will require, above all, strict adherence to the principle that the rights of the individual are paramount and cannot be subjected to official interference and limitation unless such official action can be unmistakably justified on the grounds of overriding public interest or national security. In this essential protection of our rights and our freedoms, words, declarations and even laws are not enough. At times they are nothing at all. History shows that. It also shows that in this matter the spirit is greater than the word; that custom and convention can be more powerful even than the law. It is the British tradition and the British instinct to rely on these intangibles, traditions, customs,

opinions. That British instinct and that British tradition which we have inherited in these matters is based upon, and I think justified by, experience. If these intangibles go wrong everything goes wrong and no law will save us. It is also this instinct and this tradition which have encouraged us to rely on parliamentary action in specific cases for specific purposes to protect our rights and our freedoms, rather than to rely on any fundamental law above and beyond parliamentary control.
Well, Mr. Speaker, the record over the years is certainly not perfect. However, I think it has in the past justified this approach and adherence to these principles which are grounded in the sovereignty of a free and democratic parliament. In this bill we are departing from this British tradition. New circumstances, new difficulties and new pressures may justify some such departure, but they will not justify the limited, confused and uncertain departure embodied in this bill. Exaggerated language, extravagant claims and window dressing can only add to the confusion; they cannot supply a justification.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, the very fact that the Canadian parliament has under consideration a bill to provide for the protection of basic human rights and fundamental freedoms is, in my opinion, in keeping with world feeling on this question. Some of us who watch the affairs of man as they unfold from day to day cannot help but be discouraged at abridgements of human rights and fundamental freedoms when they occur, and cannot help but be concerned and disappointed when there are setbacks. However, at an ever increasing pace I think mankind is going forward to a higher plane of human relations, and that all over the world, with few exceptions, human rights and fundamental freedoms are on the increase and are receiving greater and greater recognition.
Those of us who discuss this bill will have in mind many types of rights and fundamental freedoms. Some are mentioned in the bill; others are not referred to. These rights include the right of the individual to protection of the law without discrimination by reason of race, national origin, colour, religion or sex; freedom of religion; freedom of speech; freedom of assembly and association; and freedom of the press.
The whole question of human rights and fundamental freedoms has been a matter of long, careful and frequent discussion by the Canadian House of Commons. Participating in this discussion over the years have been many distinguished Canadian parliamentarians.

The Prime Minister introduced his bill of rights last Friday, and it is being discussed again today. He will take satisfaction in the distance he feels that it is moving toward the betterment or greater protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms. The Leader of the Opposition, in a very full and informative statement, has placed his ideas on Hansard in this regard. I have the honour today to follow in the long and consistent tradition of the C.C.F. party in supporting a bill of rights and in supporting guaranteed human rights and fundamental freedoms.
As a matter of fact, looking back through the record of Hansard, I find that the first resolution having to do with the proposition that there should be a bill of rights in Canada was moved in this house in 1945, as reported at page 900 of Hansard of that year, by Mr. Alistair Stewart, who was at that time the member of parliament for Winnipeg North. His resolution, presented some 15 years ago, is extremely interesting in that it points out some of the important questions relating to human rights and fundamental freedoms being debated at this very time. The resolution reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of this house, there should be incorporated in the constitution a bill of rights protecting minority rights, civil and religious liberties, freedom of speech and freedom of assembly; establishing equal treatment before the law of all citizens, irrespective of race, nationality or religious or political beliefs; and providing the necessary democratic powers to eliminate racial discrimination in all its forms.
This motion was presented at that time and debate was postponed because of the assurance of the present hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) that a citizenship bill would be introduced that would go at least part way in providing these important human rights and fundamental freedoms. Then in 1947 Mr. Stewart went on to discuss this question and, in a paragraph that I feel points out very adequately the choice of this parliament and for the matter the choice of mankind, he had this to say, at page 3161 of Hansard for that year:
We realize that there are two paths ahead, either one of which we as free agents may choose to follow as we will. One path leads to heights of splendour yet undreamed of; the other to the darkness of hatred and strife. One leads to a realm where the human spirit will rise, triumphant over the bigotries and persecutions of our age, where racial discrimination and intolerance of another's religious beliefs will be regarded as crimes against all mankind; where freedom of speech will be the inalienable right of every citizen; where men will no longer exploit their fellowmen for private gain; where every man will be master of his soul. That is one path we can choose.
The other path can lead only to that spiritual desolation to which our enemies would have consigned us.
Human Rights
Canada, I think chooses the first path outlined in this statement. As ideas of what might appropriately be done toward the greater protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms were revealed in this house the national leader of this party, Mr. M. J. Coldwell, the then member of parliament for Rosetown-Biggar, placed on the order paper a resolution which supported the amending of the Canadian constitution as a most appropriate means by which we could protect human rights and fundamental freedoms. His motion was debated in 1955. At that time I believe there were three motions on the order paper, one by the present Prime Minister, one by Senator Croll and one by Mr. Coldwell. By arrangement this motion standing in Mr. Coldwell's name was moved as an amendment. It reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of this house, immediate consideration should be given to the advisability of "the taking of whatever steps are necessary to amend the British North America Act so as to include therein the following heading and sections:
XII Human Bights
148. Notwithstanding anything in this act, it shall not be lawful for the parliament of Canada or the legislatures of any of the provinces to make laws;
(a)	Abridging freedom of speech and expression, or freedom of religion, or of the press or other means, of communication or the right of lawful assembly, association or organization.
(b)	Depriving any person of life or liberty by arbitrary or abusive measures, or denying to any person the equal protection of the laws.
(c)	Requiring or imposing excessive bail or cruel or unusual punishment or exiling Canadian citizens.
(d)	Subjecting any person to unreasonable interference with his or her privacy, family, home or correspondence.
(e)	Subjecting any person to arbitrary arrest or detention or denying to any person the right after arrest to be informed promptly of the charges against such person and to trial within a reasonable time or to be released.
(f)	Suspending the right to habeas corpus or depriving any person of a fair trial or the right to be represented by counsel".
The C.C.F., elected as the government of the province of Saskatchewan, lost no time in bringing forth a bill of rights and placing that measure in the laws of the province of Saskatchewan. So the C.C.F. movement has been consistent over the years in doing everything possible to protect human rights and fundamental freedoms.
Mr. Speaker, we are prepared at this time to give consideration to the bill which is before the house. The Prime Minister has said it is a step toward guaranteeing the more adequate protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms, but we believe it is not the most adequate measure which could be adopted. We believe the government has not prepared the ground for the bringing in of a constitutional amendment, which would

Human Rights
have provided a much more secure guarantee of human rights and fundamental freedoms. In other words we think this bill is hesitant, inadequate and merely a feeble attempt to do that which is required to be done and which can be done in adequate measure only by an appropriate amendment to the Canadian constitution.
Over the years there have been many occasions in this country when human rights and fundamental freedoms have been abridged. There was the famous Alberta press act which was set aside. There was the interference which took place with the religious freedom of Jehovah's Witnesses. We have had indications in recent years of discrimination in this country against people whose skin is coloured. We had instances in Canada at the time of the last war and following it in which there was great discrimination against Canadians merely because of the colour of their skin. There were great debates in this House of Commons when the Liberal government of the day was taking action to deport Japanese Canadians and to disperse Canadians of Japanese origin all across this country. In taking that action at that time they were supported by members of the Conservative party who were then in opposition. They were supported by certain members of today's cabinet; but in all those debates at all times the members of the C.C.F. group supported the rights of Japanese Canadians to equal treatment with other Canadians, and opposed the discriminatory action which was taking place.
Mr. Speaker, one of the leaders in this battle to protect the rights of Japanese Canadians was Angus Maclnnis, who for many years, from 1930 to 1953, was the member for Vancouver East and from 1953 to 1957 was the member for Vancouver-Kingsway. Many members of the house at that time felt that Mr. Maclnnis was not only wrong in his attitude but was committing political suicide. His constituents continued to support him over the years, however, and not long ago he was singled out for distinction by being given an honorary doctor of laws degree by the University of British Columbia in recognition of his strong and consistent fight in support of equal rights for Canadians no matter of what racial origin, no matter of what religion and no matter of what colour.
So, Mr. Speaker, I think it is very appropriate that Canada should at this time go forward once again with other nations of the world in providing greater security for human rights and fundamental freedoms. The question before us is, will this measure guarantee those human rights and fundamental freedoms ih an adequate manner?

One of the criticisms most often advanced about this type of measure is that it is merely an amendment to a statute law, that it can be amended by any parliament at any time and in any way, and that it does not provide for full and adequate protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the days ahead. There is also the argument that a measure of this kind does not protect Canadians from rights which have been interfered with by laws already on the statute books of this country.
I think the Prime Minister is of the opinion that this law will be passed at this session of parliament, and that it will supersede laws passed heretofore which at present interfere with human rights and fundamental freedoms. I trust that is the correct interpretation of this bill and that it is the interpretation which will be placed on this measure by the courts.
Mr. Speaker, I have in my hand an excerpt from a submission by the Canadian Jewish congress conference on human rights which took place in Ottawa on December 8-10, 1958. In the course of this conference they had this to say:
To say, as Bill C-60-
That was the predecessor of this bill.
-says, that all acts of parliament "shall be construed and applied" as not to abridge the rights and freedoms declared therein may mean no more than that they shall be interpreted compatibly with these rights and freedoms if such an interpretation is not inconsistent with the express terms of those acts. Nothing would be changed by Bill C-60 where by express provision an act of parliament spoke in contrary terms.
Here is an opinion which says that with the passage of this bill it will not supersede previous acts of parliament where there is a special and clear conflict in terms. That is a very severe condemnation of the value of the bill now before the house.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it one o'clock?
At one o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2 p.m.
Hazen Robert Argue: When we rose at the luncheon adjournment I had quoted from the submission of the Canadian Jewish congress in which the congress stated that in its opinion this bill would not protect human rights and fundamental freedoms when these were at odds with the provisions of acts of this parliament which had already been passed.
The second criticism of the strength of this bill is that when it becomes an act it will

be possible for parliament, by a simple step, to contravene the guarantees contained in the measure. Professor Bora Laskin of Toronto university has the following to say on this point:
Section 4 of Bill C-60-
That is the present bill's predecessor
-states that the Minister of Justice shall examine every draft bill introduced in the house and every regulation so that they shall not contradict the declarations of part I of Bill C-60. His failure to do so in, any particular case will not, I suggest, affect the validity of an act of parliament and beyond this, the legal power of parliament to ignore the terms of Bill C-60 in any future legislation is unquestionable.
An amendment to the constitution would remove the possibility of parliament, by the enactment of a simple statute, contravening the guarantees contained in such a constitutional provision. The weakness of this measure as it stands is that parliament, by a simple act, many remove the benefits that are stated to flow from this legislation when it becomes law.
There is a further criticism I wish to make on the same ground. Not only does this bill, as I see it, not endeavour to protect Canadian citizens against an infringement of their rights by way of provincial legislation, but it does seem to me that it may well exclude provincial acts from the effects of this present measure. In other words this act, if passed, might make it easier for provincial legislatures to interfere with the rights of Canadian citizens in the various provinces. My reason for saying this is the wording which appears in clause 3 of the bill:
All the acts of the parliament of Canada enacted before or after the commencement of this part, all orders, rules and regulations thereunder, and all laws in force in Canada or in any part of Canada at the commencement of this part-
Here are the qualifying words:
-that are subject to be repealed, abolished or altered by the parliament of Canada, shall, unless it is otherwise expressly stated in any act of the parliament of Canada hereafter enacted, be so construed and applied as not to abrogate, abridge or infringe-
And so on. It seems to me that this provision opens the door wide for provincial governments if they should so desire, to abridge human rights and fundamental freedoms by precisely excluding acts of that kind from the effects of this measure.
It has already been stated in this debate that there is one provision in this bill which seems a good deal weaker in its substance than the corresponding provision in the bill which was presented to us on a former occasion. I refer to clause 4 of Bill No. C-60, the first bill introduced on this subject on September 5, 1958, in which it was stated:
Human Rights
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 pursuant to the Regulations Act and every bill introduced in the House of Commons, to ensure that the purpose and provisions of this part in relation thereto are fully carried out.
That would seem to be a clear directive from parliament to the Minister of Justice to make absolutely certain that no future bills introduced in this house should contravene the provisions of the act. However, clause 4 of the present bill has changed the operative words, which now read:
... in order to ascertain whether any of the provisions thereof are inconsistent with the purposes and provisions of this part.
Well, should the minister find that certain provisions in a bill do contravene or are inconsistent with the purposes and provisions of the part of the act mentioned, that does not prevent him from recommending that such legislation should nevertheless be presented to this house, and does not ensure, as the former bill said must be ensured, that "the purposes and provisions of this part in relation thereto" are fully carried out.
In the light of this clause of the bill it would appear that after waiting for almost two years, instead of obtaining a more adequate bill stronger in its terms and in its protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms, we have a bill that is in fact weaker in its phraseology and its instructions to the Minister of Justice.
We are debating this bill in the concluding days of this session. I do not know how one could do it, but I think there should be some kind of legislation to assure that statements made by the government and its representatives and by the Prime Minister are in fact lived up to and carried out. When saying that the bill of rights would be laid over to the next session the Prime Minister, as reported at page 6293 of Hansard of July 18, 1959, had this to say:
In saying that I want to make clear that from the suggestion I have to offer to postpone the introduction of the bill of rights until the beginning of the next session-
That was the clear understanding. This bill was to be introduced at the beginning of this session, and during this session a committee was to be set up to study the provisions of the bill. Over a long period of time, perhaps over a substantial part of the session, the committee was to have the right to hear witnesses and evidence and decide whether or not the bill in an improved form could be brought into the house. The Prime Minister will not argue that the legislation was not ready, because there have been so few amendments that one might say it was almost ready in this form on September 5, 1958.

Human Rights
I have in my hand a copy of the bill that I take it was in final form, in the view of the appropriate officers of the house. This is an advance copy of the bill to which reference has already been made in the daily press, and it is stamped January 12, 1960. In other words the bill was available and printed on January 12 of this year. Where was it hidden? It was put away in somebody's closet. The Prime Minister denied this bill to the House of Commons for six months, and failed to carry out the terms of his undertaking given to this house.
In the light of the hopes of Canadians and the fight the Prime Minister has waged over many years for a bill to guarantee human rights and fundamental freedoms, this is a pale image of the legislation the Canadian people had hoped would be introduced at this time. There seems to be a great difference between the way hon. members of the government act when in government and the way they spoke and acted when in opposition.
On previous occasions I have referred to the way this government has failed to protect human rights and fundamental freedoms under the constitutional power it now holds. One of the darkest events in Canadian history was the passing in the province of Newfoundland of certain labour laws. Although an application was made to the governor in council requesting that this legislation be set aside, the Prime Minister refused to set it aside as we think he should have, and failed to be frank with parliament by telling us the decision was made. The hon. gentleman procrastinated and evaded when asked what the government would do until a year had elapsed. The legislation remains in effect. This is not the attitude of a government that is sincerely endeavouring at all times to protect human rights and fundamental freedoms.
One does not expect that this government can have jurisdiction in any way over the citizens of other countries. We are part of the United Nations organization. We have taken a strong stand on previous occasions with respect to certain questions respecting human rights and fundamental freedoms. When we saw some months ago a shocking revelation of racial prejudice and discrimination in South Africa, some of us raised this question in the house. We asked Canada through the government and the Prime Minister to take a strong stand on the issue. The government did not stand in favour of racial discrimination, but there was hesitancy. The question was evaded. Many months went by before the Prime Minister made a statement. In some ways it was a peculiar statement.

It contained a peculiar sentence which I think is a shocking reflection of the attitude of the Prime Minister toward human rights and fundamental freedoms in South Africa. I quote from the Prime Minister's statement as reported at page 3088 of Hansard of Monday, April 11, 1960:
I would also point out that if I were not sitting where I am, with the responsibilities that are mine, I would express myself somewhat differently from the way I am at the moment.
That may well be a true statement. If it is true it must mean that there is one attitude taken by the Prime Minister in opposition and a weaker attitude taken by him when in government.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. First, quotations from previous debates during the same session are not allowed. I do not raise any objection to that. Second, the interpretation placed upon my words by the hon. gentleman is entirely removed from the fact. All I can say is that all the governments of the commonwealth took a similar attitude to that taken by me, with the result that the commonwealth conference adopted the attitude which I had stated was the only official one I could take having regard to the necessity of preserving the commonwealth.


Mr. Speaker:: The point the Prime Minister mentioned is, of course, well taken. Quotations from previous concluded debates should not be raised in the course of subsequent debates in the same session. The hon. member should not continue to use such quotations as the basis of his conclusions.


Hazen Robert Argue: In reply to the Prime Minister I can only say that in my view, instead of making commonwealth relations more difficult this government would have helped commonwealth relations if it had at the earliest moment expressed itself more strongly in condemnation of racial discrimination in South Africa.


John George Diefenbaker: That is not what the
commonwealth prime ministers said.


Hazen Robert Argue: Indeed, the government should express itself strongly on any occasion when racial discrimination arises. To elaborate that question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The only reason for permitting any reference to that question is that it was raised as a question of privilege. I believe that matter has been disposed of, and I urge the hon. member to proceed with the main debate.


Hazen Robert Argue: I accept your ruling, Mr. Speaker, as I always do. I have no further

remarks to make on that subject. In a discussion of the question of human rights and fundamental freedoms I feel it is appropriate to refer to the lack of those rights in other parts of the world, so long as there is some connection between that situation and what is happening in Canada or statements that are made in this house from time to time.
We in this party have argued for a long time that what is required by way of protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms is a constitutional amendment. 1 do not know whether the Prime Minister is opposed to a constitutional amendment; it is very difficult to find out. But if the Prime Minister is opposed to a constitutional amendment then he is acting in a very consistent manner; because at page 5650 of Hansard he said in reply to a question of mine as to whether the government had considered approaching the provinces to obtain agreement on a constitutional amendment that he had not consulted the provinces and I quote:
Mr. Speaker, one has only to review the discussions that have taken place at the several dominion-provincial conferences in recent years, and as a matter of fact throughout the years to give a completely effective answer to that question.
If that is the effective answer, it is that the Prime Minister did not canvass the provinces, that he did not try. At least one province suggested to the government that such a canvass of the views of provincial governments should be undertaken. The premier of Saskatchewan, in a lengthy letter dated January 19, 1959, wrote to the Prime Minister asking that such a course be followed, and in so doing he had this to say:
For these reasons, I urge you to reconvene the constitutional conference of federal and provincial governments which was held in 1950 and to submit to it your proposals for an amendment to the constitution which will contain a statement of human rights and fundamental freedoms in clear and explicit form.
As far as I can tell from the return that was brought down-and the Prime Minister will correct me if I am wrong-the Prime Minister himself, over his own signature, has not yet replied to that letter. I make that statement because on June 23, in reply to a motion of mine for the production of papers, this correspondence was produced and the only answer in the correspondence is one dated June 22, 1959, addressed to the premier of Saskatchewan and signed "Respectfully, Gowan T. Guest, executive assistant and private secretary" to the Prime Minister. I know the Prime Minister is a busy man. I know that from time to time, because of public business, he is outside of Ottawa, but I do not think it is an indication of good federal-provincial relations for the Prime
Human Rights
Minister himself not to have made an immediate reply, or if out of Ottawa, then in a relatively short period of time, to this important submission to him by the premier of Saskatchewan.
In our view these are the things that the government should have done; it should have explored every possible avenue to the end that an amendment to the constitution of this country, agreed to by the provinces, might be brought in.
Many important submissions have been made on this question, one of them made by Professor Bora Laskin, who argues, and I quote his words:
Enough has come from the courts to suggest that if there is any dominating authority in the area of civil liberties it is that of the parliament of Canada and not of the legislatures of the provinces.
He goes on to show that in his view parliament should act in a field that is clearly within its jurisdiction. Mr. Justice Thorson of the Exchequer Court of Canada makes a statement along the same lines:
But it seems to follow, under our federal system which divides the field of self-government in the manner which I have stated, that since the legislative assemblies of the provinces cannot abridge these freedoms, the parliament of Canada can validly do so. There is strong support for the view that these freedoms, at any rate, ought to be embedded in our constitution by an appropriate amendment of the British North America Act so that not even the parliament of Canada can detract from them. And it would seem to follow from what I have said that parliament could properly seek such an amendment without prior approval of the provinces, since the subject matter of the amendment is not within their legislative competence.
Therefore we have the views of many learned authorities who believe that the course taken by the government today is a the very best a second course, and not the more preferable one that is available to the government. This afternoon we have been talking about certain human rights and fundamental freedoms. We have been talking about freedom of speech, of assembly, of the press and of other freedoms that we usually refer to. Professor Frank Scott, in his very interesting series of articles on the Canadian constitution and human rights, after an elaborate inquiry into what can be done to better protect those rights, ends his series of articles and broadcasts with these words:
If we are going to put anything into the constitution I hope we shall put in economic and cultural rights as well as the basic freedoms. We live in the age of the positive state, not the negative state, and it is important that we keep before us the democratic goals toward which all state power should be aimed.
In other words, Mr. Speaker, in the development of human rights and fundamental freedoms it is the opinion of this authority

Human Rights
on our constitution and of other authorities around the world that the time has now come when economic freedoms should be added to the list of what we might call traditional freedoms.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I
have done this for years, but may I ask for the indulgence of the house. I will be finished in a few moments.


John George Diefenbaker: Go on.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. member leave to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Hazen Robert Argue: As I see it, Mr. Speaker, the present course that is being followed can be criticized for seven basic reasons:
1.	Bill No. C-79 is not an amendment to the constitution and therefore does not protect those basic rights to the same extent that would flow from an amendment to the constitution.
2.	The action now being taken does not protect basic rights, freedom of speech, religion, assembly, the press and the right of association against all attackers. It protects those rights from action of this parliament, but it does not protect them from action of our legislatures or of our municipal councils.
3.	As I see it, the language of the bill is unnecessarily weak and narrow, and even in this kind of amendment the government could have improved the strength and the degree of guarantee contained therein.
4.	This bill fails to enumerate in any way basic economic rights that thinkers are now saying should be included in any modern bill of rights.


John George Diefenbaker: Will the hon. gentleman permit a question? Who are those thinkers who say that a bill of rights covering political freedom and fundamental rights ought to include economic rights?


Hazen Robert Argue: The United Nations is a good enough authority to put forward as one organization of learned men who say there should be economic rights in such a charter of freedoms, and I have quoted from Professor Frank Scott who I believe, and who I think the Prime Minister will agree, is a very important constitutional authority in Canada, although the Prime Minister may disagree with his views from time to time.
My fifth criticism, Mr. Speaker, is with regard to the record of this government. The record of this government in its approach to human rights and fundamental freedoms

is weak and compromising. The Canadian people would be given greater assurance and confidence if the government's record had been consistent, which it has not been.
My sixth criticism concerns the timing of this legislation. I criticize the timing because the bill has been introduced in the dying days of this session. My further criticism on this point is that it has been introduced in the latter part of this session in spite of the clear commitment by the Prime Minister that it would be introduced early in the session and the evidence that this bill has, in fact, been printed since early in January.
My seventh and final criticism is that the Prime Minister has failed to consult the provinces and therefore has failed to show any desire for a strong bill of rights that would flow from an amendment to the constitution.
Over the years in this parliament, Mr. Speaker, many hon. members have spoken out strongly and consistently in support of human rights and fundamental freedoms. No one will endeavour to take away from the Prime Minister his many years of consistent work in this field. I only wish that his work were being crowned by something more substantial than this bill before us this afternoon. Those who have worked in favour of human rights and fundamental freedoms have not been confined to any one political party. Earlier today I said that certain members of the Prime Minister's cabinet had supported the discrimination against Japanese Canadians. This was not true of all the members of his cabinet who were in the house at the time. I am very pleased to be able to say that the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell) has consistently, throughout his years in parliament, been a strong defender of human rights and fundamental freedoms.
I believe that all men of good will in all political parties will look upon the measure now before us as perhaps a small step toward the strengthening of human rights and fundamental freedoms. We have a long way to go. We should consider this measure as the first instalment of a program that ultimately must guarantee to all Canadians, these basic rights and fundamental freedoms.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, there are, of course, many different approaches that can be taken to a bill of rights. Some people state that civil liberties are a part of the framework of our laws; that they are deeply embedded in our temperament and form a part of the great intangibles; that a formal document would add nothing to those safeguards and guarantees that have been built up through the centuries and that are a part of our

British heritage. Some people even say that any codification would be perilous. They feel that by enunciating certain rights, by limiting them in a text, there might be serious dangers of omissions and that therefore far from adding anything new in the way of safeguards, this would be a retrograde step.
Then there are others, and if I understood the Leader of the Opposition correctly this morning I believe he is one of those who approve of the principles of the bill but make some reservations as to its extent, its form, the sanctions or penalties that may or may not be provided. I shall endeavour to answer some of the objections that have been raised to this bill of rights that is now before us.
First of all, Mr. Speaker, it might be useful to get back to fundamental principles and ask ourselves, with what is a parliament such as ours really concerned? If we look at the matter carefully and thoughtfully we might conclude that such a parliament should have as its primary aim the safeguarding of civil liberties. Then we may be brought to ask ourselves, what are civil liberties and what is the origin of such liberties and rights?
In answer to this question I should like to quote from the review Les Relations for April, 1949, in which the director of this publication, Rev. Father Richard Ares, of the Society of Jesus, asks himself precisely the same question: "D'ou viennent les droits de l'homme?" The rev. father states:
(Translation):
To this question, Christian doctrine replies by bringing in, in turn, God, human nature and the state.
That is human rights.
If their ultimate basis is God, according to the Christian doctrine, human rights have their proximate and immediate source in the very nature of the human being, in the dignity of man. That is why they are, at one and the same time, natural and inviolable.
(Text):
And that, Mr. Speaker, may be going back a very long way indeed. There is certainly no doubt that from the very outset of recorded history man has had within himself that urge for liberty and freedom to do those things which he conceives to be necessary to reach his appointed end. Yet throughout that long period civil rights were for the most part flouted and denied. It was only in the period of Greece and Rome that democratic ideals came near realization. Yet even those times were periods of slavery and periods in which the ordinary citizen did not have rights. Throughout the middle ages man aspired to freedom. Indeed, in many countries progress was made toward those ends in the formation of cities, guilds and trade corporations where the rights of free men were enunciated. However, civil rights such
Human Rights
as we know them first came to be respected in the first centuries of British history.
I need not go into the details of the great charters of Anglo-Saxon liberties. The Prime Minister has already referred to them and they are known. We have Magna Carta in 1215 and the petition of right in 1628. In 1670 trial by jury was recognized following Bushell's case. In 1679 we have the habeas corpus act and in 1689 the bill of rights. In the same year we have the toleration act. In 1701-02 we have the acts of settlement providing for the life tenure of judges. In 1792 there was the libel act. In 1695 the British parliament refused to renew the licensing act, and this refusal in effect abolished political censorship.
Besides those great charters we have in our literature many classics on liberty. I think in particular of that great statement prepared by John Milton in 1644 and presented to both houses of parliament. This has been described as the greatest statement for the case of free speech that has ever been written. The Areopagitica contains these words:
Give me the liberty to know, to utter and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties.
It goes on to say this, and it is quite relevant inasmuch as freedom of the press is part of this bill:
For who knows not that truth is strong next to the Almighty? She needs no policies, no stratagems, no licensing to make her victorious; those are the shifts and the defences that error used against her power.
We are also all familiar with that great essay of John Stuart Mill on liberty published in 1859, in which he showed how any despotism, however benevolent, must in fact cramp and destroy the development of a people. Political liberty alone is insufficient; social tyranny may be more grinding than legal tyranny.
Mr. Speaker, these and others were great words in the advance of the freedom of the peoples throughout the earth. We are proud that they were spoken in the mother of parliaments, and we are also proud that we are heirs to that tradition. That great wind that blew or that was born in that country spread across the seas. If we examine the position that exists in the great republic to the south of us we find that their liberties -I refer to the United States liberties- are even to this day largely English liberties. We recall that Thomas Jefferson wrote into the declaration of independence of 1776:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Human Rights
Benjamin Franklin wrote:
Without freedom of thought there can be no such thing as wisdom, and no such thing as public liberty without freedom of speech.
Basic is the conviction that respect tor the reason and conscience of the individual man will increase the power of reason in the universe and thus give greater assurance that human affairs will be dominated by reasonable men.
The first congress of the United States incorporated in the United States constitution the first ten amendments which in effect became their bill of rights. Today is Independence day in the United States, and I do not think it would be amiss to refer to it at this time and to salute that country which shares with the United Kingdom that heritage of great and basic freedoms.
Our tradition of freedom and civil liberty in Canada was received, as I stated, from England and also from the United States. These were modified by many other currents. They were modified by the wind that swept from France with the French revolution and its desire for freedom of the individual man. On Friday the Prime Minister referred to many of the constitutional guarantees, the enactments, which make this country what it is. The treaty for Paris in 1763 guaranteed the free exercise of religion to the French Canadians of Quebec. The Quebec act of 1774 retained the French civil law which was based on "La coutume de Paris". The constitutional act of 1791 set up consultative assemblies in Canada. There followed the fight for responsible government which was marked by uprisings in both the upper and lower house which led to the union of the Canadas of 1841. The British North America Act of 1867 contained these words in its preamble; that the provinces are to be united together federally under the British crown with a constitution similar in principle to that of the United Kingdom. Certain parliamentary and minority rights are guaranteed, but there is no mention of individual rights.
Since 1867 there has been a great advance in so far as the legal recognition of human rights is concerned. On a national scale we have advanced all the way from a self governing colony to a nation. Our minority rights are protected by constitutional guarantees. Provincial autonomy acts as a powerful guarantee against too great a centralization of power at Ottawa. However, in the case of individual or civil liberties there has not been such great progress, and there are recorded many instances of violations of these rights.
In 1948 Canada voted for a declaration of human rights passed by the general assembly of the United Nations on December
[Mr. Martineau.l
10 of that year. This was described as a goal for all mankind regardless of race, colour, language or creed. Canada has been one of the foremost nations of the world in terms of specific human rights legislation to establish equality of opportunity for its people in terms of specific legislation in the fields of employment and public accommodations, and there are quite a number of statutes which provide these guarantees.
Mr. Speaker, all this is very good as far as it goes, but what of the future? In the words of the Prime Minister, changing conditions have shown that freedom cannot be static. In recent years there have been tremendous upheavals in our way of life. The industrial revolution of the nineteenth century brought in its wake the end of the feudal system, the rise of industrial cities and its accompanying misery of slums, the poor laws and child labour. There has been the rise of the proletariat and the bleak, dismal existence during the nineteenth century of the labouring masses.
Thinkers, appalled by so much misery, endeavoured to devise new systems for the distribution of wealth and also to assure a full measure of social justice to all classes. We have seen socialism and also Marxism. Some of these thinkers and political philosophers who devised these systems were sincere and genuinely advocated improvement in the conditions of society and of the classes as they saw them. However, practical, hard headed realists who applied these theories very often denied these very liberties and exercised power for power's sake; and we have had these extremes of fascism and communism which brought with them the brutal suppression in many countries of all civil liberties and mass extermination of many millions of people.
Today we look at new problems created by the complexity of our modern existence. We look at the problems which are created by the population explosion and by shrinking natural resources. Then we have the east-west struggle. We see the hundreds of millions of red China, laden in toil and satisfied to endure endless servitude in exchange for bread and security. Certainly no one can conceive of red China, for instance, adopting a law providing for the recognition and protection of basic human freedoms.
Some writers have brought up a vision of the future. H. G. Wells in "The Time Machine" envisaged the men of the future. They were all in similar garb and had the same soft, rounded figures, unable to concentrate and tiring quickly. He described them as the sunset of humanity. In this society there was no need for strength. The

world was at peace and secure. The strong of body and of mind would only have felt frustrated.
In Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World" individuality is a thing of the past. Society bends every effort to make completely true its motto of community, identity, stability. In a foreword written to a re-edition of his work in 1946, speaking of the real world as he saw it, not tbe nightmarish vision of his work of fiction, he had this to say:
In an age of advanced technology inefficiency is the sin against the Holy Ghost.
A really efficient totalitarian state would be one in which the all-powerful executive of political bosses and their army of managers control a population of slaves who do not have to be coerced because they love their servitude. To make them love it is the task assigned in present day totalitarian states to ministries of propaganda, newspaper editors and school teachers. Already throughout the world in many parts democratic forms of government have gone out of fashion and have been replaced by the rule of a dictator or a tyrannical clique: even in democracies, governments have often been attracted by the illusion of the efficiency of all-out control.
All of this, I believe, points to one thing, and I am now reminded of one of the concluding statements made by the Leader of the Opposition this morning, when he stated: "Encroachments by states on individual rights in recent years have been matched by individuals protesting that infringement." The hon. gentleman went on to say that constant vigilance was necessary, and that the great dilemma of modern times was how to organize a modern state while at the same time preserving individual freedom.
I agree that that is the most important question. I think that by this very bill of rights we have shown in an unmistakable form that we are more attached to individual liberty than to anything else. That is, as I see it, the purpose behind the bill; that is the cause underlying the great struggle which has been carried on by the Prime Minister ever since he came to this house, both within and outside this chamber. He wanted it to be established clearly and beyond a doubt that here in Canada in the twentieth century, in 1960, despite all the great problems that are massing all over the world, we still stand for that basic freedom; that this ideal is not out of date.
This bill of rights, imperfect though it may be according to some of the critics on the other side, serves its purpose because it is a beacon and an inspiration. It is an inspiration to Canadians both old and new, both to those whose forebears came here in the first days of the colony and also to those who have newly migrated to our shores. It is a beacon which will shine very brightly, also, before the eyes of the newly emerging nations who will say, "Canada, a country which is materially wealthy, still puts first things first." That is the great merit of this bill.
Human Rights
I have not time to go into the detailed criticisms which were made of this measure, and I do not wish to do so. But I wish to say that this is indeed a step in the right direction, and a very long step. The Leader of the Opposition referred this morning to the Magna Carta. He said we have Magna Carta. If we look at the terms of Magna Carta we discover that its language was far from perfect. Nevertheless it can still, after 800 years, serve as an inspiration to the living democracies of today.
I was reading a few days ago from the book on Sir John A. Macdonald written by Mr. Donald Creighton, "The Young Politician". In that book, describing the first Dominion day, the author says:
Everybody noticed the beauty of the day; everybody observed how auspicious was its splendour.
Mr. Speaker, July 1, 1960, was also a clear, bright day, auspicious too in its splendour as the parliament of Canada heard the Prime Minister speak on his cherished bill of rights, the charter of the freedom of Canadians everywhere.


Alexis Pierre Caron: The big show is on. On Dominion day the Prime Minister brings up his pet legislation. 1 do not know if it was his intention to have the people of Canada forget about the poor administration or anything else. As a matter of fact, he chose the time in order to try to make the biggest show for himself.
(Translation):
There is no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that the Prime Minister places enormous value on his pet project, but does so in a very inconsistent way.
For several sessions, he has talked to us about the bill of rights. In fact, he introduced it at the second session, then withdrew it. He is introducing it again at the end of this session, hoping no doubt that the opposition will not take the trouble to give it proper consideration.
Nothing in the world could take his mind off this fixed idea of his, of appending his name to a Canadian bill of rights.
In its present form, it is ludicrously ponderous, and unadapted to the minds of the people, especially of the younger generation, of school children, who one day will be taking our places. .
Besides, an article published in the Ottawa Citizen on February 6, 1959, reflected about the same opinion as the one expressed by the Canadian Bar Association.
(Text):
The Diefenbaker government's proposed bill of rights was criticized as being dull. It is a declaration rather than a law enforcible throughout the country. For this very reason, the lawyers agreed that it should be so written so as to inspire children and stir the hearts of men. '	[DOT]

Human Rights
(Translation):
Further on, the same paper recalls great declarations, like Lincoln's Gettysburg address. This is how they start:
(Text):
We here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain... and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.
(Translation):
Now compare this, Mr. Speaker, with the terms used' by the Prime Minister when he introduced his bill. It is a ponderous bill, especially in its legal phraseology. It could never be applied.
Let us now look at the initial paragraph of the constitution of the United States and that of the United Nations:
(Text):
We, the people of the United States of America, we the people of the United Nations. (Translation):
Those are exalted terms, which speak to the mind and to the imagination.
Now here is the beginning of the American declaration of independence:
(Text):
When in the course of human events-
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal-
(Translation):
Are those not inspiring words, quite out of the ordinary?
The Atlantic charter also, in its turn, proclaims human rights.
(Text):
-to live out their lives in freedom from fear and want.
(Translation):
That is a simple and brief statement, but surely a declaration of general principles understandable to the lowliest mortal.
Let us look now at the constitution of UNESCO:
(Text):
Since wars begin in the minds of men, it is in the minds of men that the defences of peace must be constructed.
(Translation):
The United Nations Declaration of Human Rights reads as follows:
(Text):
To promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom.
(Translation):
Now let us compare this, Mr. Speaker, with what the Prime Minister has to offer:
(Text):
It is hereby recognized and declared that in Canada there have always existed and shall continue to exist the following human rights and fundamental freedoms.
(Translation):
Do you notice the ponderous, legal terminology, bound to displease the public at large?
[Mr. Caron.l
Besides, if those rights have always existed and will continue to exist, why clutter up our statutes?
We still have that famous document, the Magna Carta of 1215, which paved the way to basic human freedoms.
Over the years, Britain quietly proceeded to draft its own general declaration, and was able to increase the freedoms demanded by the people. The result is that no country in the world enjoys more freedom than Great Britain. There are few countries in the world where human freedoms are more respected than in Canada.
Particularly in the past few years, Canadian courts have adequately protected the rights of individuals, especially in the religious field.
However, must we please the Prime Minister, who is seeking to achieve fame through this pointless bill?
Why not simplify his sentences, as suggested by the editor of the Citizen who instead of the cumbersome sentence put forward by the Prime Minister, suggests this:
(Text):
Canadians always have enjoyed and always shall enjoy the following rights and freedoms- (Translation):
It is shorter, simpler and more easily grasped.
I admit that this may seem somewhat rhetorical, as the Prime Minister, it seems, would rather have it in the form of legislation than a declaration of principles.
Under what circumstances are we called upon to enact legislation? When are such enactments required to maintain peace and order, to promote morality and neighbourly relations among the citizens of a country or a province?
As for the rights specified in this bill, could the Prime Minister single out any that has not already been guaranteed by laws or treaties since 1760? The Magna Carta itself -since we inherit the British traditions- fully safeguards every individual whatever his race, religion or language.
And the Prime Minister made the same statement himself when he said: "Those fundamental freedoms have always existed and shall continue to exist in Canada." Since those freedoms have always existed, the bill is a perfectly useless duplication. Had the Prime Minister been as wise as some people would have him, he would have agreed to our intelligent suggestion that a committee of both houses be appointed to study this legislation, for he is not omniscient. He should have enough humility to recognize that his thinking, good though it may be, might still leave room for improvement. Such a committee could, while preserving the Prime Minister's basic thinking, introduce

more poetry into the bill and make it possible tor school children to learn it by heart and thus build the new spirit of the future, as stated by UNESCO:
Since wars begin In the minds of man, it is in the minds of man that the defences of peace must be constructed.
It is from the minds of young people that we must remove fanaticism.
There is no doubt about it, our legislation has proved adequate to protect the individual against interference by mobs and by governments. In proof of this, there was the supreme court judgment against the Quebec government respecting Jehovah's Witnesses. We all know that this sect was waging its propaganda by trying to destroy Catholic thinking in the province of Quebec, in an insulting, defamatory and degrading way. The proper way to deal with them would have been to bring them before the courts for insults and disparagement. On the contrary, those people were prevented from holding a meeting in a private house, some of them were placed under arrest, the police confiscated some pamphlets and other printed matter. On account of the arbitrary method used in their arrest, Jehovah's Witnesses won their case.
Not very long ago, the Supreme Court of Canada also gave judgment against the former premier of the province of Quebec, in favour of a restaurant owner who had been deprived of his license because he had supplied bail in favour of the Witnesses of Jehovah.
Those who want to avail themselves of our laws as the they exist in Canada, always succeed in vindicating their just claims, even against those who do not resort to legal methods to reach their aims. If we look one by one at the various judgments rendered by the Supreme Court of Canada in various fields, we will find that anyone who chose to appeal to our courts always obtained fair treatment.
Would the passing of this bill, in its present form, improve or amend anything whatever? Not as far as I know. Anyway, I am not the only one to think so. The Winnipeg Tribune, which always has had great admiration for the present Prime Minister and has long been advocating the proposed bill on human rights, published the following editorial under the title:
(Text):
A Bill of Bights that Means Little-
Mr. Diefenbaker is determined to have the bill passed during the present session.
(Translation):
He was referring to the last session, that of 1959:
(Text):
With the Conservative majority as large as it is. chances are the Prime Minister will have his wish. But this does not alter the fact that in its present form the bill of rights is little more than window dressing.
Human Rights
(Translation):
And farther down, the Winnipeg Tribune continues as follows:
(Text):
It is a pity that Mr. Diefenbaker, after being so vigorous a champion of individual rights for so many years, is settling for such a puny bill.
(Translation):
This from a newspaper usually friendly towards the Prime Minister.
That is exactly what I claim, and it is in those very terms that, a few years ago, I criticized the bill then introduced by the leader of the Canadian socialist party, Mr. Coldwell. Besides, last year the people most interested,
i.e. the members of the League for Human Rights, at a meeting held at the Chateau Laurier, strongly criticized the bill of rights now introduced by the Prime Minister in its present form. I am not telling him anything new; he has already been told by that very association.
I said a moment ago that the situation is in no way changed, because it is not our laws that are defective, but the human spirit that is unsound.
The Gazette of December 26, 1958 published the following words on this subject by Mrs. G. Marshall:
(Text):
A decade of international legislating of human rights has not proved peaceful, effectual or satisfactory, so perhaps now what is needed is a new heart and a new mind in those people who are entrusted with the nation's destiny to see that righteousness, justice and honesty are carried out. (Translation):
Then too, Mr. Speaker, Soviet Russia and all countries behind the iron curtain have adopted similar bills to protect human rights and, in spite of all those laws, thousands of people have been exiled, deported, imprisoned, because they did not see eye to eye with the government, which did not prevent the Russians, in spite of those bills of rights, to invade Hungary and to proceed there with the most awful massacre ever recorded in history.
The hon. member for Pontiac-Temisca-mingue (Mr. Martineau) said a moment ago that China could not afford to have such a bill of rights.
Well, Mr. Speaker, may I say to the hon. member that China has indeed adopted a bill of rights. Let me quote a few sections of this act, which is in force in China at this time.
Section 85 reads as follows:
(Text):
Citizens of the people's republic are equal before the law.
(Translation):
Section 87 says:
(Text):
Citizens have freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, freedom of association.

Human Rights
(Translation):
Section 88 provides:
(Text):
Citizens have freedom of religious belief. (Translation):
Yet, despite all these freedoms which are included in the Chinese acts and constitution, hundreds of priests, clergymen and bishops have been persecuted for years, and are still being persecuted.
: Section 89 of this act says:
(Text):
No person may be arrested except by decision of a people's court or with the sanction of a people's procuratate.
(Translation):
Section 90 reads:
(Text):
The homes of citizens are inviolable, and privacy of correspondence is protected by law. (Translation):
Now, Mr. Speaker, we all know what those people's courts amount to in communist China. A mass meeting or mob is organized. People are whipped into a frenzy of hostile demonstration against an individual whom the government dislikes, and who, without further ado, is led off either to jail or to violent death.
Mr. Speaker, communist China has passed a bill of rights, but what good did it do?
I remember reading and hearing missionaries say that their residence had been broken into, that they had been placed under arrest, thrown into jail, and that after a few months, when they were broken down by ill-treatment, that famous people's court was called to sentence them to an even longer jail term. That is what they do with human rights in communist China, despite existing legislation. This proves that it is always the mind that has to be cured, and that minds cannot be cured by legislation. It is better to train the people to see their duty and to be charitable to their fellowmen.
Despite all those bills of rights, the Chinese as well as other people living behind the iron curtain enjoy those freedoms to the extent where they submit to the often iniquitous legislation enacted by their government. Nothing has changed; everything is as bad as before those laws were passed.
This bill of rights would be really effective only if the Canadian government were fully sovereign, which is not the case. We have provincial governments which, in their own field, that is to say in the field of civil law, enjoy absolute sovereignty; therefore, there is no sovereign government in Canada, and there can be no truly efficient legislation of this type unless it is drafted and accepted by the federal and provincial governments.
Besides, the British North America Act confirms the rights of the minorities, and
[Mr. Caron.1
because of the ill-will of certain people, its application has been extremely difficult. Now a bill such as this, imposed by the Canadian government, is by no means binding on the provincial governments, because they are never subject to the legislation of other governments. They can act as they see fit, with ot without justice, with regard to minorities. A bill such as this would have no effect in wartime because no provision is made in that respect.
Therefore, the bill comes almost a hundred years too late, and is too ill-drafted to achieve its real purpose.
On December 16, 1958, the Winnipeg board of trade had this say about this measure:
From our study of this bill, that is the bill of rights, it seems to us that nothing is being added to the liberties now enjoyed by the people of Canada. Our freedoms are founded on British common law, and on tradition, on our constitution and on our statutes. Even if Canada is a young country, it is known as a nation where individual freedom and protection of individual rights have been developed to a degree which is envied in many parts of the world.
We are concerned about this bill to guarantee human rights and which, as it does not add anything to the rights now enjoyed by Canadian citizens, may only, over the years, obstruct the development and evolution of those rights. In fact, we could truly say that generally speaking too much defining is limiting, and we hesitate to support any legislation which might result in limiting the development of individual rights in Canada.
Some of the rights we enjoy today were neither known nor even hoped for 200 years ago, and we think that if a legislation like the one proposed had been introduced two centuries ago, we would probably today, be restricted to those freedoms only, which were legally accepted at that time.
Mr. Speaker, so as to establish clearly that the bill cannot achieve its purpose and that it is unnecessary, let us bear in mind that, in spite of statutes and treaties, the only province which really has respected the rights of minorities and individuals throughout Canadian history, is the province of Quebec.
We know that the Canadian constitution conferred upon minorities the right of having their own schools in so far as that freedom was part of the statutes of the said provinces before the British North America Act was passed. Now, in New Brunswick, right after the British North America Act was enacted and because conditions which had prevailed until then were not based on a statute but merely on tolerance, a persecution was started which prohibited the teaching of French and religion in the schools, and abolished any privilege which we had considered our right.
So, the French speaking minority appealed to Sir George Etienne Cartier, who was at the time the leader of the French speaking minority in Canada, asking him to have that

law disallowed. Sir George Etienne Cartier rightly refused, to avoid setting a dangerous precedent. True, in the meantime, the situation in New Brunwick has improved, as in most other Canadian provinces; but, in spite of human rights, persecution has persisted in some provinces.
When, in 1871, Manitoba joined the confederation, Sir George Etienne Cartier, in order to protect minorities, and after what had happened in New Brunswick, took the precaution of having included, on behalf of French speaking minorities, the same principles which prevailed in favour of protestant English speaking minorities in the province of Quebec. But, in spite of that precaution, by 1891 the Manitoba government outlawed the teaching of French and of religion in schools, in spite of the laws which had been passed.
Do you believe, Mr. Speaker, that the federal government of the time could have mustered an army and invaded Manitoba to compel the provincial authorities to respect the act which they had signed when joining the confederation? That was impossible. It was only after discussions between Sir Wilfrid Laurier and the leader of the Manitoba government of the time that, quietly, around 1897, legislation was enacted which relieved to some extent the difficult situation of the minorities in that province. It was in the minds of men that everything was wrong.
Do you think the adoption of this Canadian declaration could have prevented, in 1911, the province of Ontario from adopting its famous regulation XVII against the teaching of French and religion in the schools? Even if this bill had then been in force, the Ontario government would have defied it and would have acted as it did. It was the courage and the fighting spirit of the French speaking minority that helped us overcome those difficulties. Today, those things are of the past; they are forgotten, but still I say that a law such as this one would have failed to remedy the situation.
Would the adoption of a law such as this have prevented Mr. Anderson, leader of the Saskatchewan Conservative party in 1928, from fighting the Gardiner government, because it was granting too much protection and latitude to the teaching of religion and French in schools? Would it have prevented Mr. Anderson's government from removing crucifixes, which are not a sign of Catholicity, but a sign of Christianity? No, Mr. Speaker. All those efforts would have been in vain.
The fault lies in people's minds, and it is through the mind of men that it can be remedied.
79951-0-358
Human Rights
Thank God, the day has come when the rights of Canadian citizens are respected, and not only because we have laws but because the attitude of Canadians has improved, and people have a better understanding of their duties. Thanks to this better understanding we may enjoy more freedom in all parts of Canada.
In any event, the persecutions which had started in the Atlantic area slowly moved towards the Pacific, and it can be hoped that whatever traces remain of this spirit of persecution will soon fall into the Pacific and completely vanish.
Mr. Speaker, there can be only one way of drafting a piece of legislation in such a way as to prompt our young people to have a little more respect for justice, and that is to go into the matter more thoroughly, and give the bill a more literary, more poetic and less legalistic form. Once their minds have been steeped in justice, we will no longer have to worry about rights being violated. Mr. Speaker, when the house comes to a vote on second reading, I shall support the bill which I regard in its present form as pointless, useless, but not really harmful.
Again I urge the government, or rather the Prime Minister to postpone his bill until the next session, and by that I mean the beginning of the next session. Then we might set up a joint committee of the Senate and the Commons, which could hear the suggestions and objections of individuals and public bodies such as chambers of commerce, boards of trade, the Conseil de la Vie frangaise en Amerique, the Canadian Bar Association, the civil liberties association and a number of others. Indeed, there have been many criticisms so far. In its present form, the bill drew some rather sharp remarks from the Ontario bar, as reported in Le Droit for February 2, 1959, and I quote:
Ontario barristers agreed Saturday that the bill on Canadian civil liberties should be of higher inspiration, and should be "something that will roll off our tongues and that will echo in our classrooms."
Professor Stuart Ryan, of Queen's University, stated that the bill should be written in language "appealing to the hearts of men, while protecting rights and liberties".
The delegates agreed and recommended in a resolution that the federal government transpose the legislation "into words expressing the full nobility of both the French and the English languages."
As it is, the professor stated, the bill of rights is "prosaic, pedestrian and commonplace".

Human Rights
"We want something that can be used to inspire our children, that can be taught in our schools; something that will roll off our tongues and that will echo in our classrooms".
Let us not forget that there are people who support this bill for such opposite reasons that you wonder how they can meet, just as there are people who oppose it for equally different reasons.
Take the case of Nicholas Saloablancas Schatroph, who takes issue with it because, as he says, it is aimed at maintaining in Canada a respect for the minorities. Here is what Mr. Schatroph and like people have to say:
(Text):
Since the obvious purpose of the bill of rights is to fit Canada to the requirements of minorities, let us analyse a minority group to have a better understanding of the subject.
There is no law in this country prohibiting anyone from becoming a part of the majority. Therefore the desire to remain part of a minority is strictly personal and deliberate.
What are the motives behind this choice?
They are entirely matters of prejudice. (Translation):
As you see, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman who wants to be a true, dyed-in-the-wool Canadian, resorts to objectionable exaggeration because he fails to understand that, whenever a new Canadian arrives in this country, wherever he comes from, something is added to Canada's cultural heritage, and that the newcomer only adds to the development of his new country as long as he remains himself.
For instance, anywhere in the world, the Irish remain themselves, keeping their songs, their dances, the fighting spirit which is their hall-mark yet they are loyal and generous with regard to their adopted country.
The same is true of the Jewish race, which becomes acclimatized without ever being absorbed. I could quote many instances of people from other countries who brought new wealth to Canada, and to the United States. If that Mr. Schatroph had thought it over even five minutes, he never would have written those lines.
In conclusion, is it not surprising that the same man who waxes quite sentimental about human rights does not seem to consider them here in this parliament? In proof of this, I shall quote part of an article by Mr. Jean-Marc Poliquin, which was published in Le Droit for June 28, 1960.
By so heavy a timetable members of parliament are treated as beasts of burden. Only in factories thriving on sweat labour can similar working conditions be found.
But our M.P.S are not the only ones to suffer from such unreasonable conditions. Hansard editors,

interpreters, translators, stenographers, typists, clerks, etc. are driven like slaves. It is unqualified exploitation of the parliamentary staff. The federal government eagerly legislates to promote more humane labour conditions in private industry. But for two and three months a year, they think nothing of riding roughshod over principles that are held sacred by organized labour. But soon we will hear a pathetic plea in favour of a Canadian bill of human rights.
Such inconsistency in our parliament is quite unspeakable.
And what about Bill C-27 which was introduced during this session? I have no intention of dealing with it, as this would be irregular. But, before passing this bill, the government should have disallowed the former. Bill C-27 deprives our citizens of any right provided in this bill with regard to the recognition and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms.
Yet, when the bill is passed, that other legislation will still be in our statute books allowing government inspectors to enter premises without a warrant, by day or by night, to question and even to arrest people, whereas the latter are not entitled to appeal to the courts before the inspectors have finished their investigation. Before this bill is enacted, the Prime Minister himself should have rescinded Bill C-27.
Therefore, the Prime Minister ought to do some hard thinking over his own mistakes before offering to solve the problems of others.
May I be permitted a few suggestions, Mr. Speaker? It seems to me that the bill should contain some such sentence as: "Men being equal before God shall likewise be equal before society"; or this "Christ's message: 'love thy neighbour as thyself . . .' must be outwardly expressed towards one and all"; or this: "Life, liberty, security and the possession of property shall therefore be an inalienable right to be respected by all"; or this: "Freedom of religion, of language, of speech, of association, together with freedom of the press, are sacred, natural rights that the parliament of Canada may not hinder"; or this: "Colour, racial origin, religion or sex do not confer inferiority or imply any disadvantage to the human person".
Mr. Speaker, I could suggest many more possible forms.
Even if the Prime Minister wishes to have this legislation passed, in order that human rights may be respected, may I tell him that he will never achieve his end if he does not succeed in giving rise to that feeling of respect in individuals.
In concluding my remarks, I ask him again to set aside the purely legal aspect of this

bill and to submit to us something lighter, so that children in our schools may prepare right now to take over the leadership of the Canadian people, steeped in a spirit of true fraternity and charity towards all. Then, it will no longer be necessary for the Prime Minister to present his bill on the 1st of July, Dominion day, Diefenbaker day.
(Text):


Mr. Arthur Smith (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, it is my intention to take only a few minutes of the time of the house this afternoon on Bill No. C-79. While this proposed legislation has been described by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) as ordinary legislation, I do not consider it as such. I therefore recognize that there are unquestionably a great number of my colleagues on both sides of the house who feel some deep responsibility in speaking on what is, I am sure, in the opinion of the Canadian people, the most important piece of legislation that has yet come before this parliament; and I can speak only for the parliament in which I have had some experience.
I think we can understand the unusual sensitivity of the opposition members who have spoken, in particular the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Caron), who have directed at the bill a number of criticisms, some of which I propose to deal with. Those gentlemen, having sat in their seats for so long and having contributed to a government which to some degree ignored some of these liberties or freedoms, now take offence that any government should decide to take action and see that the individual, the little man, is going to be given protection against any bureaucracy, regardless of who may be in power at any given time.
I subscribe to the principle that this legislation cannot be considered in the light of just today. This bill was introduced for a purpose or a time when we Canadians take for granted our fundamental freedoms. This bill was designed to meet the possible alternatives that were open to a government desiring to see that fundamental freedoms were indeed protected. What were those alternatives? The first was to do nothing, to sit back and to assume that abridgement of and encroachment on civil liberties should continue. The second was to attempt to obtain a constitutional amendment by negotiation or discussion with the provinces. The third was to introduce a statute which would at least clean the doorstep of the federal parliament of the responsibility so as to ensure 79951-0-3581-
Human Rights
that future encroachment on civil liberties and fundamental freedoms will not occur henceforth.
The criticisms that we have heard to date fall roughly into two categories. The first to which I subscribe is a legitimate and serious criticism, namely the purpose or hope of obtaining a constitutional amendment which in effect would bind provincial legislatures as well as the federal authority.
The second criticism is one that I find hard to grasp. It was dealt with at some length by the Leader of Opposition who on the one hand described the bill as unexciting and unimaginative, and said that its language would not be remembered and that it would not serve as a beacon to the future generations. That criticism was supported by the hon. member for Hull who again at some length described the language used in this bill as unexciting and without any real meaning. We are obliged to ask these gentlemen, I suggest, whether indeed they want an exhibition of literary prose or whether they want a bill which is in fundamental principle going to mean something to the Canadian people. In its concise terms I suggest that the bill can and will be clearly understood and that it should not be cluttered up with a great number of words which are indeed meaningless.
There are two other criticisms and these are supported by a number of witnesses which the Leader of the Opposition introduced into the debate. They are gentlemen who have unquestionably given a great deal of study and thought to the matter, namely university professors and members of the Canadian bar. It is that particular group to which I refer. I think the government of the day took into consideration the views of these gentlemen and that there can be no suggestion that time has not been given for every Canadian to make representation in a similar way inasmuch as this bill was referred over from the last session. I would remind the house that each of these individuals, regardless of the ivory tower from which he speaks, has not the responsibility of piloting a bill through the House of Commons and of working out. an agreement with the provinces and therefore, I suggest, has not the same appreciation of this very real difficulty as has a member of the House of Commons.
Let me say a word about the problem of obtaining a constitutional amendment. We in Canada take some pride-and I think rightly so-in the make-up of our ten Canadian provinces and the formation of the constitution of this land. Each province jealously guards its own rights in a manner which is perhaps unique in the world. Because of this fact certain problems are presented to

Human Rights
any federal authority. I think all of us even in the House of Commons accept the principle that the rights which were granted to the provinces are those which they indeed should jealously guard. But recognizing as we do the need for a federal statute to give human rights and fundamental freedoms to individuals in Canada, we say that we also accept the responsibility of encouraging and providing leadership to the provinces to introduce their own complementary legislation so that some day we can eventually have an allembracing law affecting the provincial governments as well as the federal government.
This then, Mr. Speaker, represents the first step, and an extremely important one it is, in this respect. But let us look at the other criticisms that we have had directed at the bill. It is said by the Leader of the Opposition that by defining those rights we may eventually delay an all-embracing law. As to the ordinary man, that person who today will be reading the report of this debate, I suggest that the introduction of this Bill No. C-70 may not necessarily have a direct bearing on his life. He may be unaware of its existence even today. It is significant perhaps that he may not be called upon to ask for redress in the event that any of his fundamental freedoms have been encroached upon. What is important is that the statute will exist. He will have that right of redress. He will therefore be given that protection by this parliament, and unless this action is taken through this bill, these rights will indeed be denied to him. So I suggest that in defining these principles contained in the bill we are in effect safeguarding these fundamental principles.
Then we have heard it said that these rights are inherent in our customs and in our traditions. I think this is basically true, but again I ask the house to look on this legislation not in the light of today, where as I said at the outset we assume or take these liberties purely for granted, but under a circumstance in which a situation can indeed change. The Leader of the Opposition said-I think I am paraphrasing him correctly-that if parliament does indeed need to be reminded of this need for a bill of this nature then we are not in very good shape. The fact of the matter is that parliament does need to be reminded because parliament itself in the past decade has abused these same privileges and freedoms that we are attempting in this bill to protect.
A criticism which hardly seems justified and to which I have made some reference relates to the question of language. When you find hon. members of the opposition repeating the views of a school boy, and

while these views have every right to be described in this parliament, when opposition members take the time of the house to describe the inadequacies of the language, you really wonder if they have any basic criticism of the bill at all. I suggest that it has to be concise so that it is going to be clearly understood.
The last point the Leader of the Opposition made, a rather important one, was that he talked of the need for eliminating the War Measures Act. I would not support this suggestion under any circumstances because the War Measures Act is designed to meet a circumstance which is out of the ordinary to say the least, namely an emergency situation where all Canadians are required to give up certain rights so that in the common interest of survival we can continue to work and live. If the provisions of this act were in any way removed it would mean that our basic fundamental freedoms would have little or no meaning whatsoever for we might not live to enjoy them.
A bill of rights, I suggest, is no ordinary legislation. It is not in itself designed as the only remedy for the situation it seeks to meet. It is a document of compromise rather than of precise definition, yet one or more of its inherent defects has characterized nearly every important document in our history. The arguments both pro and con which we are now hearing have been heard before when breaking some new ground. If we enact our bill of rights it will be the first in our history as a democracy under a federal system.
This poses some special problems. They are far less difficult than the problems which have already been met and will continue to be met under similar circumstances. It may prove to be that we are contemplating here just the first step. To the extent that this is so it will be subject to the criticism of those who view the matter from a purely academic or idealist point of view. Even the United States bill of rights, which is far more detailed and specific than our own was so criticized for many years.
It is not surprising, nor is it I suggest necessarily regrettable, that there are these constitutional problems to which I have made some reference. Surely if by introducing a federal statute or taking this first step we can then encourage those provinces to come with us by introducing complementary legislation, we can thus achieve those same objectives which the Leader of the Opposition spoke of at some length. A statutory bill of rights does no more than keep the spotlight continually on the encroachment process. It would in my opinion more than justify its existence on the statute books.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, may I say that in our parliamentary system we have the process that on third reading, at the end of the debate, we assess the views of those members of the house in order to determine the outcome of such a measure through the use of the simple vote, and I suggest that when the vote is passed here we will be separating in effect the men from the boys when we decide who is in support of basic rights and fundamental freedoms and who is not.


Hubert Badanai: Mr. Speaker, I doubt whether any bill has ever been presented to parliament more eloquently than this one was presented by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) last Friday. Nor do I think that a better case has ever been made out for the inadequacy of this measure than that which was so effectively portrayed by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson), notwithstanding the fact that we are all in agreement with the intent of the bill.
The government's desire to enact a bill of rights further to guarantee the liberty of the individual is indeed commendable. There can hardly be too many safeguards against officious persons, guardians of the law and others who may enjoy pushing people around. But the greatest danger does not come from those who enjoy pushing others around; it comes from the well intentioned official who thinks he knows best what people ought to have regardless of what they want and are willing to pay for.
The man or woman who suffers injustice at the hands of government agencies appears to be at once at a disadvantage. An example to which I wish to refer is the case of a restaurant owner in the Toronto area who was refused the renewal of his licence to operate his restaurant because women of easy virtue and others of unsavory reputation were served in his establishment. I suppose that if this eating place was located next to the stock exchange or a bank it would probably draw a different type of customer. The denial of the renewal of this man's licence is rank discrimination.
Will this bill guarantee the operator of a restaurant, some of whose clients may be hoodlums or prostitutes, the right to operate an eating establishment when he has committed no offence except that of having served possible law breakers? I submit that this bill in its present form appears to be merely a prestige piece rather than an all out effort to secure certain safeguards for our people.
A brief presented to the Prime Minister on April 29, 1959 by a number of organizations,
Human Rights
after enumerating a number of individual rights, contained this paragraph:
Finally it is felt if the act is to be truly effective it must provide legal protection for the individual in cases where his rights or freedoms are violated. The very nature of a right or freedom contemplates that to exist it must be respected and therefore enforced. An act which did not provide any remedy to a person whose rights or freedoms were attacked would serve little purpose and be of little practical value.
Will this bill be a real safeguard to former inmates of prisons, who having paid their debt to society at the expense of their freedom are still being discriminated against, their terms in jail being used as a club over their heads? A former inmate is unable to obtain a bond such as it would be necessary for him to have in order to find employment in a warehouse or even as a truck driver. A good bill of rights would contain a clause designed to protect individuals against such discrimination.
The traditions of rights, privileges and responsibilities which we inherit from the framers of our constitution are, by the nature of our own way of life, as essentially our guide and protection as is the British North America Act itself. Those positive elements which ensure the fair treatment of almost everyone are as much a portion of our own heritage as is even Magna Carta. The treaty of Paris, the British North America Act and our own traditions since 1867 ensure the protection of individual rights and privileges. But even these do not give positive and complete assurance. If the government really wants to do something more substantial than make a general declaration it should consider establishing something like the public petition committee which has enjoyed such success in New Zealand.
In the New Zealand parliament there are very interesting administrative procedures for processing petitions of grievance that may arise as a result of administrative decisions or actions. Would this present bill provide guarantees, for example, to the rights enjoyed by any ordinary citizen or to an illegitimate person? I have in mind the case of an illegitimate son in New Zealand. His father had committed an indiscretion in his youth resulting in this boy being born. The son later moved to England where he was a resident when his natural father died without leaving a will and without a legal heir. The son, who had never been legally adopted, tried to claim his father's estate, but New Zealand law prohibited illegitimate children who had not been adopted from receiving benefits not granted in a will.
The son petitioned parliament, and the public petitions committee which investigated the case recommended that the son ba

Human Rights
allowed to take possession of his father's estate. The government accepted the recommendation, though to do so meant ignoring an indisputable provision of New Zealand estate law. The issue was not subsequently contested in the courts, so the son, as far as I know, is now in possession of the property which had been his father's.
This is an example of a true heir, not legally adopted, being granted his petition to take possession of his bequest despite a legal oversight. In this instance an indisputable legal provision was boldly ignored in order to remedy a genuine injustice.
I suggest the establishment of an effective public petitions committee similar to that which has been set up in New Zealand. Perhaps such a committee could be established in the other place; no more trustworthy agency to discharge the duties of such a committee could be found than that august body, the Canadian Senate.
It is true that for many years the Prime Minister has been advocating some procedure which would make the rights of individuals more secure. For example, in 1945, as recorded on page 2460 of Hansard the right hon. gentleman had this to say, speaking on the national emergency bill.
If we are going to delegate this absolute power that will make of this parliament for a period of one year a phantom, legislatively speaking, let there be a provision in this bill, as there is in Great Britain:
"and every order in council... shall be laid before parliament.. . and if either house ... resolves that it be annulled, it shall cease to have effect..."
The present Prime Minister then asked: "Why have we not done that here?" Then he proceeded to say:
There is another control in the United Kingdom. The house of lords has set up a committee to review all these orders in council. I think the time has come when possibly the other place might well consider-and I say this with great deference- looking over and considering the mass of orders in council, this march of legislative enactments over a period of years. They should be examined so that it could be ascertained which of these orders in council impinge and infringe upon private rights and are unnecessary.
Can there be any objection to that? That committee would have before it the controllers and other officials who could come marching with their orders in council which they are asking us to perpetuate for a period of another year and possibly more. Great Britain protects the right of parliament by providing that orders in council may be set aside after being submitted to the scrutiny and examination of parliament. Do that, and those who desire to perpetuate themselves in office under order in council legislation will be placed on the defensive.
Then the right hon. gentleman said that when laws that are to be passed will affect every phase of the economic life of the country as well as our national life-laws which

also deal with nationality and deportation- there should be safeguards. He added:
Let us retain in parliament, with the coming of peace, the right to legislate. If that is given up, let us know how it is being exercised. Let us act, if I may use the expression, as the police of the regulations that are enacted.
Again, the Prime Minister speaking on the debate on the address in 1949, as reported on page 147, made the following suggestions:
I should like to make a suggestion which would give an opportunity for service to the new members who have a feeling of frustration because of their inability to find anything to do. I should like to see a committee of parliament set up, that would examine delegated authority-in other words, a committee on ministerial powers. At the moment I am not criticising the principle of delegated power, but if it is carried too far it is a denial of the democratic system of government.
Delegated legislative power results from the technical nature of most legislation and the difficulties involved in legislating to meet complex conditions. In the United Kingdom it has been found necessary to set up a committee in this regard, 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.
The Prime Minister lauded, and properly so, the usefulness of British parliamentary scrutiny committees. I might add that the Australian senate has a scrutiny committee too, the efforts of which have been crowned by surprising successes in protecting the rights and freedoms of Australians from enlisted airmen to importers. One of the new members of the commonwealth, India, also has an effective scrutiny committee in the lower house which operates under terms of reference similar to those of the British house of commons committee.
Surely it is time that the Canadian parliament caught up with developments in younger parliaments. What would be the position of this government in relation to the bill of rights if confronted by a petition of a citizen against the abuses of some ministerial discretion, such as we have in the Immigration Act, or abuses of some departmental power in connection with an import or export regulation?
In Denmark they have a parliamentary commissioner whose duties are to supervise

and investigate any possible abuses of administrative powers. His functions are similar to the New Zealand petitions committee.
Much of our federal legislation containing features of a prejudicial nature such as the detention provisions under the War Measures Act should be amended which would perhaps be more effective than the mere declaration of rights.
The passing of this bill in its present form, which in essence simply highlights certain parts of the legislation, does not ensure that no injustice will be perpetrated. In fact, it does no more than provide one more reference for the establishment of justice and that is not a new or really different one. In clause 2 of the bill it is stated, and I quote:
It is hereby recognized and declared that in Canada there have always existed and shall continue to exist the following human rights and fundamental freedoms, namely,
(a)	the right of the individual to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law;
(b)	the right of the individual to protection of the law without discrimination by reason of race, national origin, colour, religion or sex;
(c)	freedom of religion;
(d)	freedom of speech;
(e)	freedom of assembly and association; and
(f)	freedom of the press.
There is also the implication of provincial jurisdiction it is true, but the Prime Minister has made it clear that this bill will not infringe in any area of purely provincial jurisdiction.
I have heard, however, from a source close to the legal profession that it is a fairly widely held opinion in those ranks that such loosely phrased provisions as "freedom of speech" and "freedom of assembly" without qualification may open up possibilities for litigation and that the greatest benefits, financial and others, will accrue in most cases not to the ordinary person but rather to the lawyers themselves. But, Mr. Speaker, I am not a lawyer, so I will leave further analysis of this problem-and I see it from the layman's point of view as a serious one-to hon. members trained in the law. I am sure you will agree with me when I say that this house has an impressive array of these.
The bill is merely declaratory and does not create new rights. That being so, I am disappointed that it does not contain a declaration couched in words such as those of which the Prime Minister is preeminently capable, or in language that would inspire, something that every school child would memorize as the people of the United States memorize passages of the declaration of independence. I should like to quote directly from that declaration:
Human Rights
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness:-That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed-
The declaration of independence of the United States concludes with this inspiring pledge:
And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honour.
It is not too late to include a similar preamble with which to adorn the rights of man. In time such a declaration in memorable English prose, possibly in Churchillian style, could provide the basis of a genuine political guarantee or the basis for an agreement to amend the British North America Act to provide therein a true bill of rights.


Mr.  M. D. Morion@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, the introduction of the bill of rights, Bill No. C-79, by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefen-baker) gives rise to a consideration of a number of fundamental problems the effect of which is not easy to codify or state in precise terms. We become suspicious that perhaps those making the request that these should be more precisely defined have not given full consideration to the implications of such a bill. For instance, the bill gives rise to a discussion of the principle of the supremacy of parliament versus the supremacy of the rule of law.
Under some other constitutions, including that of the United States the legislative bodies cannot change certain aspects of the constitution. In approaching the question of the introduction of this bill we must decide in our minds whether we are to follow the historic practice of our parliamentary institution in making it supreme or depart from this practice and include certain matters under the rule of law. I will come to discuss that more fully later.
The introduction of this bill also gives rise to the problem of the method of amendment of the British North America Act. During the course of this debate many have suggested that they agree with the principles of the bill but feel that we are making a mistake in not making this bill a part of our constitution by amendment to the British North America Act. I and many other Canadians are ashamed of the fact that at this date in our history we have not evolved a method of amending the British North America Act as regards the rights of the provinces and of the dominion.
I was very pleased to hear our Prime Minister say at the beginning of the session that

Human Rights
he was giving some consideration to this problem. Most of us must reluctantly consider that it is because of our lack of initiative that we have not come to any conclusion on a method up to the present time. Therefore, I suggest that perhaps it might be unwise if we tried to solve two problems at this time even if a method of amending the constitution would serve the purpose better than this bill of rights. We must wait until we have solved the first problem before we consider whether it should be our method of enacting a bill of rights at the present time.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Surely not as far as political freedoms are concerned.


Mr.  M. D. Morion@Davenport: The hon. member has raised that question, Mr. Speaker. In the course of my remarks I hope to discuss the question, but among our judiciary there are some differences as to what are civil liberties and what are civil rights. I will discuss that. If we had that clearly defined I would agree with the hon. member.
The other problem which is brought up is the matter of civil rights versus civil liberties. What are civil rights and what are civil liberties? Perhaps I might go into that question now. In the discussion of our constitutional problems our courts have shown a tendency to separate some of the things that might once have been considered matters of civil rights; they may be matters of civil liberties and thus, shall I say, extend the power of the dominion government. In the Canadian Bar Review of March, 1959, Professor Maxwell Cohen, at page 231, said:
Broadly speaking, I am of the opinion that so far as the constitutional aspect is concerned, many matters considered heretofore to have been within the field of "civil rights", strictly so-called,-
And he is referring to the bill of rights. I continue:
-and therefore often within jurisdiction of the provinces, may now appear on closer examination to be matters of the broadest public policy and of national concern. That this is so already emerges from the line of decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Saumur, Switzman and Roncarelli cases, among others, where it may be said a re-examination of the nature of Canadian civil liberties has been taking place. Moreover, both federal and provincial legislation already reflect the provisions of the charter dealing with human rights on such questions as "fair employment" and "fair accommodation" practices.
However, when we read the article of Professor Bora Laskin, Q.C., in the same edition at page 116, in referring to the Saumur versus Quebec and the Attorney General of Quebec case we find the following:
Saumur versus Quebec and Attorney General of Quebec is the only case which may properly be regarded as giving any support to the contention for provincial power over the political freedoms, and it was the judgment of a badly split court.

Moreover, the course of decision before and after Saumur is quite inconsistent with the views of those members of the nine-judge court who held that the political freedoms were within provincial competence. In truth, the Saumur case presented no clear majority view on exclusive power to legislate in relation to civil liberties. Three members of the court were of the firm opinion that freedom of religion was within section 92	(13)
as a "civil right in the province". Four members of the court were of opinion that it was not within provincial competence: and of these four, two concluded that federal power was exclusive. The remaining two justices were unwilling to say that exclusiveness resided in either province or dominion: either might deal with the political freedoms in certain respects.
I give this quotation to show that there is no clear-cut decision on the part of our courts saying what are civil liberties and what are civil rights and, therefore, this is a matter that has to be decided.


Paul Joseph James Martin: What about the Boucher case?


Mr. Morton:: It adds to the jurisprudence of the country but in all fairness I say we cannot say specifically what the boundaries are, what are civil liberties and what are civil rights.
In passing, I would say that the right of the individuals to develop their individuality is also involved in such a bill as the one before the house. As I interpret it, the bill provides that parliament itself shall have more control and closer supervision, over the acts of the executive part of our government. We cannot avoid nor ignore the important role which our courts are to play in respect of this legislation. If this legislation itself were to be the sole definition of what is to happen, then I think you would have to look into it and get a clear codification of what it sets out to do. But carrying on with our common law tendencies and the practice of jurisprudence we know that this bill will be a declaration which will be interwoven into and added to the common law that already exists on this subject matter.
Mr. Speaker, may I just briefly bring the matter into focus by reviewing the principles involved. Starting with early English history, from which our common law has evolved, there were many struggles for freedom and greater security of the individual. In 1100 Henry I set out a charter of liberties. In 1215 under King John the Magna Carta was signed. Then during the reign of Charles I there were petitions of right. During that time there was a struggle to eliminate the absolute power of the sovereign, a struggle to set up the rule of law, or the supremacy of law, and to bind the ruling monarch to rules and regulations which might apply also to subjects. This struggle having been won, there followed a movement away from the

rule of law. From 1688 onward in England parliament itself took unto itself all the absolute powers of the monarch and parliament became supreme.
Of course throughout the development of history we have had these great petitions, these declarations which were part and parcel of the everday law. Parliament itself, during this period which followed, had the power to rescind all these declarations if it so desired. However, as I stated earlier we find that when the people of the United States came to consider their constitution they set out certain things which they felt their legislative bodies should not consider. Now in Canada if we were to add together the powers of the provinces and of the dominion we would still find that although the principle of the supremacy of parliament is retained by the combination of the provincial and federal legislative bodies, there is no supreme parliament in Canada. In effect, through this division of powers we have a form of the bill of rights or a guarantee of rights. It is in this situation that we have brought before us the measure which we are discussing today.
Perhaps, as a reminder, we ought to look at section 89 of Magna Carta, to which reference has been made, the great charter of liberty in our system. Section 89 says:
No freeman shall be taken or imprisoned or deseised from his free tenant or from his liberties or from his free customs, nor shall he be outlawed nor exiled nor in any way destroyed, nor shall we go on him nor shall we set against him, unless by the legal judgment of his peers or by the law of the land.
One might think that this would be allinclusive, but if we know the history of feudalism we know that there was no guarantee of rights to the serfs who worked for the freemen. The only guarantee of rights was for the landed gentry against the monarch. The charter did not grant right to every individual within the state. However, as a result of that declaration a basic principle of our jurisprudence has been established and has been extended so that today all individuals within England have the same rights. If we were to take that charter in its original form we could have a great discussion on its inadequacy but as a result of that declaration we have the heritage that we have today.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, with these things in mind I believe we should consider what would be the best method of making a declaration here in Canada, something which has not yet been done. As has been stated, we could have a constitutional amendment which would cover provincial matters. For reasons which I have stated before, I do not feel that is a practical method at this moment.
79951-0-359
Human Rights
As a matter of fact, I feel it would be presumptuous and unfair for us to ask the parliament of the United Kingdom to pass a bill of this sort. It would reveal our inadequacy and the fact that we are unable to make the amendment ourselves. We would be asking the United Kingdom parliament to decide something for us. It is true that we can petition for it and it would be a sort of automatic process, but in principle I feel it would be wrong to have such important principles which affect all Canadians declared and passed by the parliament of the United Kingdom.
The other method would be to enact a constitutional amendment that would affect the powers of the Dominion of Canada and urge the provinces to pass complementary legislation. Mr. Justice Locke seems to consider there is some difference between a constitutional amendment by the dominion government and a statutory enactment but, in effect, I think they are both the same. It makes no great difference under the present circumstances whether we proceed by a statutory enactment of the parliament of Canada or by way of an amendment affecting the powers of the Canadian parliament. I feel that this is a first step, and the only step we can take at the present time. I would urge hon. members, therefore, that we follow this procedure.
Certain criticisms have been directed to the fact that the bill has been introduced in the dying moments of the session. I should like to remind the house, just as the hon. member for Calgary-South (Mr. Smith) did, that this matter has been discussed for many years in this house, even before many of us came to this parliament. It has been discussed by the Canadian Bar Association and many articles have been written about it. Hon. members, if they wish, could look at the issue of the Canadian Bar Review for March, 1959, which was devoted almost entirely to a discussion of this bill. The question of a bill of rights has been discussed at two Canadian bar conventions. I had the privilege of being present last year when it was discussed in Vancouver, and the consensus was that the principle of the bill was good. Of course, lawyers do not agree on the wording of any act and there was a discussion as to that. However, I believe the spirit of the act was agreed upon. The bar association felt that the Canadian parliament would be justified in passing such an act.
I know that hon. members of the official opposition have directed criticisms against this bill, and I feel it is proper that they should. We cannot believe that they think any less of freedom and the rights of individuals,

Human Rights
which this bill sets out to protect, but possibly they are thinking more of their historical reputation in this country. The hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) has discussed economic rights and said perhaps they should be included in such a bill. Without discussing whether they should or should not I would say that that is a field that is difficult to define. Economic rights are becoming more and more a part of various statutes of this land.
I, for one, would rather hesitate to say now what should or should not be included in such a bill. Perhaps the hon. member recalls the example of the wording in Saskatchewan when the original act, as I understand it, contained the phrase "the right to work". This phrase sounds very innocent, but it was found that if it were fully implemented it would run counter to certain union policies so the act had to be amended.


Hazen Robert Argue: What they want is the right to a job, an opportunity to work.


Murray Douglas Morton: I can only observe, Mr. Speaker, that you cannot guarantee jobs by statute.


Hazen Robert Argue: Not with the Tory party.


Murray Douglas Morton: Not with any party; this must depend upon the actions of the government and the initiative of the individual. I know the hon. member is of the school of thought that thinks that all things that are done in this country should be done by the government pulling the strings. I think we should develop the idea of self-reliance of the individual.


Hazen Robert Argue: Tell that to the unemployed.


Mr.  M. D. Morion@Davenport: We are not in a discussion of the unemployed; we are talking about the bill of rights. If these rights are adhered to, individuals will be given the right to exercise their initiative in developing this country as it should be developed.


Mr. McCleave:: Down with Marxism.


Hazen Robert Argue: Don't whisper to Hansard. Let us all in on it.


Mr.  M. D. Morion@Davenport: In conclusion I should like to reiterate some of the remarks that have been made by some other hon. gentlemen in this house. Perhaps I can make some comment on the War Measures Act which has been mentioned. Perhaps the War Measures Act does nullify, especially with regard to citizenship, certain things that should be guaranteed in the bill of rights. I would suggest that we review again the War Measures Act in order to eliminate what can be eliminated of those features of it which are
objectionable rather than try to spell out in detail such things in the bill of rights.
One of the effects of the passing of this act, in my opinion, should be that it will require parliament to give second thought to its legislative program having regard to its effect on the individuals within the country. I think that is a great step forward. Too often not only the various legislative bodies in their acts but of executives and even senior level civil servants in their declarations have, because of the expediency of the moment and the urgency of the problem forgotten their long reaching implication and effect on the rights of the individual.
We can pass this bill and put it on the statutes, Mr. Speaker, but I think those of us who have witnessed the experiences in Europe know that a statute is not enough if the spirit of freedom and of the consideration of rights does not live in the hearts of our people. No statute in itself is a guarantee of those freedoms. Whether there be a constitutional amendment or a statute nothing will stop the growth of tyranny or of totalitarian states if the people are not willing to fight and to protect their freedom, as witnessed by the advance of nazism in Germany prior to the second world war and of communism today in Europe. If our people are indifferent to the actions of their government and fail to exercise their vote or if they carry on their daily activities without regard for the rights or desires of their neighbours, no statute can alone maintain the vital rights in our democracy. As it was necessary to unite Canada in the early days by rails of steel it is now necessary, because of our expanding population from many origins, to have a common declaration of rights applicable to all and understood by all, in order to unite us from coast to coast in the defence of our democratic system and in the practice of those principles which will give the maximum security and happiness to our people.


Harold Edward Winch: This afternoon, Mr. Speaker, we have had the privilege of hearing from the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Smith). As I recall his words, the hon. member said that in his opinion the people of Canada feel that the bill we are now discussing is the most important one to come before this house at this session. I wish it were possible to agree with that contention but I do not think I can do so. I do not believe the average member of the general public of Canada knows the import or the implication of this bill or how it will or will not have an effect on his daily life, responsibilities, freedoms and liberties.
We also heard from another worthy member on the government side-and I think

I am right in saying that-the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister (Mr. Martineau), who said in his speech that this bill was a beacon, if I remember his words correctly, to the people of Canada in the outlining of liberties and freedoms. That too is a statement that I wish were completely correct, but once again I am obliged to disagree because the bill is not a beacon. It is a fizzling squib. I want to say that I am most disappointed that I must stand in my place and make those two views known on those two statements.
I am bitterly disappointed in this statute. I am disappointed because in the seven years that I have been here I have followed closely the statements made by the hon. member who is now the Prime Minister of Canada on this matter of a bill of rights. Not only have I followed closely all he has had to say in this house but I have read with interest the reports of his speeches outside of this House of Commons and I have read with a great deal of interest his views and opinions before I came here as a member of this august body. May I say quite honestly and most sincerely, Mr. Speaker, that the high principles and the high motives which I heard expressed by the present Prime Minister make this bill completely unworthy of him. I expected something different, something more vital and more concrete, in order to guarantee to the people of Canada their rights and their liberties.
I have always been greatly disappointed over the fact that when the declaration of human rights was being considered the Canadian representative had found it necessary or expedient to abstain from voting on some occasions and that, although endorsing the principle, Canada by statute has never taken any action on it. Some mention was made of that during this debate. It is quite interesting to note that some of the same reasons expressed today are exactly the same as were expressed when the universal declaration of human rights was being considered. I have here the booklet entitled "Human rights: a program guide for group and community action", and on page 12 it says:
During the framing of the declaration of human rights Canada at times found herself in an awkward position. Our representative considered himself forced to abstain from voting when some of the articles in the draft convention were adopted. This was because the matters under discussion fell within the responsibility of the provinces and not of the government at Ottawa. A large part of the declaration concerns itself with the social securities and with employment-
I draw that to the attention of the previous speaker.
-areas which are substantially within the jurisdiction of the provincial governments.
79951-0-359J
Human Rights
Mr. Speaker, that was several years ago and I know drew the attention and the interest of the present Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker). It was our hope in this group that over the years the Prime Minister in introducing a bill of rights would have found the method or perhaps a policy or plan whereby it would be possible in this country to adopt and to maintain from coast to coast within all jurisdictions a bill of rights. But it is apparent that that is not to be.
As I said, I was disappointed in that this bill in my opinion is unworthy of the high motives and principles which have been expressed by the Prime Minister in the past. On page 16 of this pamphlet on human rights I quote the Prime Minister as follows:
In 1958 in Winnipeg. Mr. Diefenbaker announced his government's intention to institute a bill of rights for Canadians which recalled his previous statement on the subject in Winnipeg on February 8. 1947.
Then it quotes the statement:
When the British North America Act was passed, the fundamental freedoms of Magna Carta and the (British) bill of rights were believed to be so firmly embedded in our constitutional development that they would never be infringed. For that reason they were not included in the British North America Act. But changing conditions have shown that freedom cannot be static. To be preserved it must be practised-
On another occasion the Prime Minister said:
What would a bill of rights do? It would establish the right of the individual to go into the courts of this country, thereby assuring the preservation of his freedom. These great traditional rights are merely pious ejaculations unless the individual has the right to assert them in the courts of law.
I would like to bring this back to the memory of the Prime Minister. He said:
At present, the individual's rights are maintained only at the caprice of the government of the day.
In trying to be honest and in being most sincere does the Prime Minister remember the statement that "These great traditional rights are merely pious ejaculations unless the individual has the right to assert them", and "the individual's rights are maintained only at the caprice of the government of the day"?


John George Diefenbaker: Unless he has recourse to the courts, and that is provided for in clause 3.


Harold Edward Winch: And I presume that means all of Canada. I also presume that the Prime Minister said that the individual's rights are maintained only at the caprice of the government of the day.
I presume the Prime Minister objected to the individual's rights being at the caprice of the government of the day, and wherein do we differ now with the introduction ot

Human Rights
the bill now before us which, as I understand it, is something which is strictly at the caprice of the government of the day. I understand that a government cannot do anything which will supersede any act of any other parliament and therefore with a majority of one it is at the caprice of the government of the day. I gather not only from the statement I have quoted but from previous pronouncements of the Prime Minister over the years that he wanted a bill of rights which was not at the caprice of one individual, one government or any particular parliament.
I was most interested in the remarks of the previous speaker, the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Morton), because he did bring in some mention of the attitude as he understood it of Canadians on this matter and he also brought in the ancient declarations of liberty. When this bill was originally introduced a year ago I did considerable work in preparation anticipating it might come up at the last session of parliament. I still have in front of me some of my preparatory work and I cannot see any great reason for changing the opinions I formed at that time. Following what the previous speaker said, I also say that I feel that quite often Canadians are much too complacent about their heritage of freedom and they tend to take their civil liberties for granted. I also say that from my own point of view I feel there is no room for complacency in Canada. Freedoms of which we are wont to boast, and therefore to feel proud about, are not as secure as many are led to believe; nor are they as secure as they should be.
I do feel that we have to bear in mind that the freedoms that we think we have have been infringed upon in the past, and when they have been infringed upon the necessary steps to remedy these breaches of freedom have often taken a good many years to come about. As the previous speaker said, there are certain great declarations of liberty. As he mentioned, we had the Magna Carta of 1215; we had the habeas corpus act of 1679; we had the bill of rights of 1689. But they do not bind our parliament, the parliament of Canada, any more than they do the British parliament.
The reason for that is that federal and provincial parliaments are supreme within their own spheres of jurisdiction as outlined in the British North America Act and no citizen and no court can challenge that jurisdiction. Admittedly there are certain spheres of rights which are protected by special clauses, but many to the best of my knowledge have no protection in what we might call a Canadian constitution whatsoever. I refer to two clauses

guaranteeing freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of the press and freedom of religion. These freedoms sprang from the instincts of the people and their basis was public opinion or tradition or special acts of parliament.
So this does show that they may arise in the absence of constitutional provision. Because this question is of such importance I want to give a resume of legislative interference with freedom. I have these examples listed here because they were prepared when the bill was first introduced. After the Winnipeg strike in 1919 the parliament of Canada passed an immigration act authorizing the deportation of certain aliens without trial and interfering with the freedom of association. The measure was finally repealed, but not until 1936.
Hon. members will recall that in 1946 there was the spy investigation in the course of which suspected persons were seized, denied counsel, held incommunicado and interrogated by commissioners before a charge was ever laid. This was done by order in council P.C. 644 passed on October 6, 1945 and revoked in April, 1946.
Then again, when Japan entered the war, thousands of Japanese-Canadians born in Canada-were seized from their homes and deported to camps in the interior of British Columbia and elsewhere after their property had been seized. They were not permitted to return to their homes until 1949.
Then, of course, Your Honour, being a lawyer, will know about the Expropriation Act of 1952 under which a person's property can be taken away from him without his leave or without even informing him of what is being done, merely by filing a description of the property in the appropriate registry office. I am told by those who are versed in the law that this is perhaps the most arbitrary procedure for expropriating property for public purposes that exists in the whole of the civilized world. I am told by those who are versed in the law that that is correct.
Then who needs to be reminded that in 1937 the province of Quebec passed the iniquitous padlock act, and it was not until 20 years later that it was declared ultra vires by the Supreme Court of Canada. Under that act the attorney general of that province was given power to padlock the premises of any person suspected of promulgating communism or bolshevism. The power was altogether arbitrary, and no definition of the offence needed to be made because in the act there was no definition of what constituted communism or bolshevism. Even today in Alberta there is a statute on the books

of that province restricting the right of Hutterite colonies to purchase land. They cannot purchase land within 40 miles of an existing settlement, and the land which they so purchase cannot exceed 6,400 acres, half of which must be cultivated and must have been for sale on the open market at least 90 days before a Hutterite colony can purchase it. I mention these things to show how by legislation, both provincial and federal, it has been possible in the past to abrogate what I am certain the Prime Minister believes should be the rights, freedoms and liberty of all the people of Canada. That is still possible at the present time.
As has already been pointed out by previous speakers, there are two ways in which a bill of rights could be given the force of law. First, it could be written into the British North America Act as an amendment or, second, it could be enacted by the Canadian parliament as a solemn statute. It is the second method which the Prime Minister has chosen inasmuch as he has introduced this session the bill which is now before us. I believe, as do the others in this group, that this second method is not going to bring about the results which we have always felt the Prime Minister has in mind.
There are without doubt a number of high-sounding principles in the bill, but because it is a bill of this parliament alone which is, to use the words of the Prime Minister, subject to the caprice of any succeeding parliament, it is bound to have serious limitations. It is not binding upon any provincial legislatures or any municipality because it is just a bill of this parliament, and it is not binding on any individual in Canada in so far as its expression of principle is concerned because there is no provision for enforcing it in principle even as far as the parliament of Canada itself is concerned. I do not know how you are going to enforce a bill which has no penalties attached to it.
This is, actually, a directive to the people of Canada as to how we feel they should carry on in a social and moral way. A bill of rights, to have any profound significance, can only be one that is embodied in the constitution; one that is agreed to by all the jurisdictional and parliamentary bodies in Canada. If the introduction of the present bill is a move to try to educate the people- an indirect request to the provinces that they should follow in a similar direction with regard to their own jurisdiction-then from that point of view the measure may be of some benefit. But in view of the fight carried on by the Prime Minister in the past, and the statements he has made both while in
Human Rights
opposition and as leader of the government both here and outside the house in speeches from the Pacific to the Atlantic, we did expect more than a bill of wishful thinking and window dressing. I know that when I heard the Prime Minister indicate from his place the other day that this bill was to be introduced on Dominion day 1 hoped that it would be non-political, not an emotional appeal based on expediency but a bill of power and vitality, a bill of understanding and strength so that when it was introduced on Dominion day it might make a real impact with regard to guaranteeing freedom and liberty in Canada.
I can only repeat that my disappointment has been very keen. The bill was not introduced in January but has been brought before us in the concluding days of this session. There have been months of study, analysis and correction since its introduction. This indicates that the Prime Minister must have found himself on a hook and did not know how to get off. I know that the hon. gentleman must feel badly that the content of this bill stacks up so poorly with what he has said in the past about a bill of this nature.
We in this group are constructive, sympathetic and co-operative.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Hazen Robert Argue: Let us not overdo it.


Mr. Lambert:: The halo hangs heavy.


Harold Edward Winch: We want to help the Prime Minister. To the extent we can we wish to contribute to a real bill of rights that will have an impact and be enforceable. As the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Badanai) said, it is impossible to pick up a newspaper in Canada from year to year without reading of people being discriminated against in hotels, restaurants and elsewhere.


Robert Jardine McCleave: And in the House of Commons when it is considering divorce bills.


Harold Edward Winch: Yes, one reads about such events every year in Ontario and unfortunately you read about such events in British Columbia too. Mostly, however, these things occur in Ontario. I will not discriminate in making this reference because this is just one country. This bill gives no power over situations of this kind. Our immigration policies are outmoded and permit discrimination on the basis of colour although we are all members of the British commonwealth. I do not know to what extent this bill can meet the situation. I speak for myself but I think I am right in saying that the Prime Minister must feel dissatisfied with his bill. It is not the guarantee that is required. The

Human Rights
hon. gentleman must recognize that such a guarantee can be provided only by amendment to the constitution.
The Prime Minister must have been irritated with me the other day because he went back 17 years to find something I said. If he had been present on that occasion he would have known exactly what was meant. I was talking about the need to bring the British North America Act back to Canada so we would have control of our own constitution in Canada and so it could be brought up to date to meet the changing requirements of the times. I have the record if the hon. gentleman wishes to examine it.
The Prime Minister in introducing this bill has revealed what he has in his heart and mind. The hon. gentleman should now go further and bring in a bill that is more cogent and that is enforceable. Because of the inadequacy of this measure I propose to introduce an amendment designed to help the Prime Minister. Strange as it may seem I am really trying to help the hon. gentleman. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Regier):
That this bill be not now read a second time, but be it resolved that this house is of the opinion that the provinces should be consulted in order to ascertain whether agreement can be reached on the terms of a constitutional amendment to guarantee human rights and fundamental freedoms.


Mr. Speaker:: If no hon. member wishes to raise any question about this amendment I will place it before the house.
Mr. Hev/ard Graffley (Brome-Missisquoi):
Mr. Speaker, in a day and age when many peoples of the world cannot take human rights and fundamental freedoms for granted this bill represents a landmark in what we might refer to as the field of human rights. Hon. members know that although we enact written legislation in this and other fields it is the spirit of this type of legislation which is of more importance. Already in this house reference has been made to the fact that many countries that have very fine documentation outlining the basic tenets of human rights do not in fact enjoy them.
In listening to the hon. member who preceded me I concluded that he outlined the fact that a C.C.F. government would incorporate in written legislation many things with which I personally could not agree. I am sure that a Conservative administration could not agree either with some of the things the hon. gentleman suggested should be included in written legislation. With respect to the economic aspects of this legislation particularly, the hon. gentleman attempted to assert the fact that we should incorporate in

written legislation many things which I do not feel lend themselves easily to the written approach.
The hon. member spoke in general terms of building by legislation and other actions toward that degree of human rights which should be enjoyed by all the Canadian people. I merely put this question to the house. Does not the legislation we are considering at the present time, as the Prime Minister has already enunciated, represent a real step toward the attainment of the condition which the hon. gentleman described in general and forceful terms?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I hope the hon. member will forgive me for interrupting him but to my mind the main question has been superseded by this amendment and attention should now be given to the principle of the amendment which is a contrary principle to the bill. Perhaps the hon. member would prefer to defer his remarks until disposition of the amendment has been made, if he wishes to discuss the principle of the bill itself. May I read the amendment again:
That this bill be not now read a second time, but be it resolved that this house is of the opinion that the provinces should be consulted in order to ascertain whether agreement can be reached on the terms of a constitutional amendment to guarantee human rights and fundamental freedoms.
I would think that in the interests of orderly debate that question should be debated and disposed of before members return to the principles of the bill.


Hazen Robert Argue: On the point that you have raised, it is a well-known practice in this house that a motion and an amendment are considered at the same time. It has not been the practice formerly at any rate to endeavour to restrict the debate to an amendment to a given motion that may be before the house. I think this is unduly restrictive. I have no particular axe to grind. The debate has now been going on in the house for a few hours; but I do feel it is unnecessary and an undue restriction of the debate that after an amendment is moved there should be a narrow or a narrower interpretation of what can be discussed at that time. After all, the motion before the house is that the bill be read a second time. An amendment has been moved, as provided for by the rules of the house. In my memory here it has not been the practice to endeavour to restrict speeches to the particular wording or the particular subject of the amendment.


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, in connection with the same reservation may I refer Your Honour to Beau-chesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms,

fourth edition, citation 201, at page 168. In referring to amendments to a motion it says:
In that case the debate that follows is not restricted to the amendment, but includes the motives of the amendment and of the motion, both matters being under the consideration of the house as alternative propositions.
If the amendment that has been moved is an amendment, then I would think it would be in order to discuss it as an alternative. On the other hand, if it goes further and is merely a negative motion then, of course, it may be out of order. If it is merely an amendment, then I would think it is in order to discuss the main motion under this principle.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I take it you have accepted this as an amendment, and not as a motion negativing the main motion, which would make it out of order. Because of the rule which has just been cited I would hope that the hon. member who has the floor could be permitted to speak on the main motion and amendment. The two are so closely related to each other that if the amendment has to be disposed of before the motion can be debated again it seems to me it would be really unrealistic. I would hope that the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi could be permitted to speak on the main motion and on the amendment, if he so desired, at the same time.


Mr. Speaker:: What has been said is quite true if the amendment is simply an amendment of the motion varying it in some degree; but this is not an amendment of the motion; this is asserting a contrary principle on the basis of the motion that the bill be not now read a second time. It is not simply a negative; it is a negative associated with a principle contrary to the principle of the bill, and to my mind the two are quite dissociated and distinct propositions. However, I do not propose to thrust my views on the house. Apparently the house is quite content to have the matter debated as one motion, and I therefore withdraw the objection which I took on the basis that the house gives its leave to vary its procedure, notwithstanding that I consider it not strictly in accordance with proper practice.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, up to now it seems to me that perhaps the crux of this debate is certainly that one of the centrifugal arguments revolves around the fact of whether this particular type of legislation should be introduced by way of a constitutional amendment or not. With that thought in mind and arguing for the passage of this bill as it is I hope I can keep my remarks within the realm of your decision.
Human Rights
I should like to relate this part of my remarks to the amendment. The hon. member who just spoke said that he wants something enforceable. I put this question to him and to the house. I repeat; everybody has agreed that this is one step forward. It is not all perfect. As far as it goes this bill is certainly enforceable. We have something enforceable right here now. Is this bill not enforceable?
I suggest to the hon. member who made that remark that he take this observation most seriously. He pointed out the fact that in the past the Prime Minister claimed that individual rights were maintained only at the caprice of the government of the day. That is exactly what the Prime Minister said and meant. At that time individual rights and freedoms were maintained only at the caprice of the government of the day. If today or in the future he sees human rights being tampered with by the interpretation of the government, by the courts, by a body or groups of bodies, then the hon. member has a real duty to inform this house and the Canadian people at large of any such breach or caprice.
Time and time again, the hon. member said this legislation was unworthy. I forget how many times he used the word, but I would suggest to him that he offered the house no reasonable alternative to the present legislation except a constitutional amendment. I feel that already the government and many government supporters and spokesmen have dealt very ably with this aspect of the debate.
In days gone by we have often heard the expression "It is written". The ten commandments are written. Each and every one of us can certainly fulfil all the rules perhaps-and I underline "perhaps"-of the ten commandments without necessarily fulfilling all the obligations inherent in being a good Christian. Many things are written, and thus the compelling symbolism of the present legislation before the present Canadian House of Commons. As I said-and I repeat myself- this present legislation does not pretend to cover the whole field; but the Prime Minister has referred to it as a landmark, a mark of progress in the general field of human rights.
In times gone by, and especially during this debate, the opposition have said that this bill might and should do things that the government has never pretended it might or should do; thus the smokescreen; thus the straw men that have been brought up before us time and time again.
When we were young, many of us heard about the other place and this House of Commons, but seeing is believing. Like so many school students do, we have actually to come

Human Rights
here and see the physical rooms in the physical buildings here, the House of Commons, which makes our undertaking of governmental and parliamentary processes so much more improved and important. Thus, again I say, herein lies the symbolism of this bill that so many members of the opposition in an intellectual, cynical and sophisticated way attack. They attack a bill that many Canadians are glad to have at the present time. I refer especially to the many new Canadians who not so long ago were not enjoying the fundamental human rights, liberties and freedoms that are outlined in the legislation before us.
I have often said, and I repeat today, that perhaps one of the hardest jobs the Prime Minister has is following the Leader of the Opposition in debate. I can readily imagine the trend toward clipping newspapers, Professor Lamontagne writing that brief of 20 or 30 pages that the Leader of the Opposition appears with in the house. We get the "on the one hand" technique and the "on the other hand"; we get "maybe this or maybe that"; we don't agree with this extreme or we don't agree with that extreme. During this debate we have heard the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) declare that we should have a bill with more teeth in it, yet the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Caron) said we should have a general declaration. We have had a potpourri of criticisms, of press clippings and of opinions that were against this legislation for goodness knows how many years in the past. But I ask the opposition, where is the principle? Where do they stand?
I know they are going to say that I am going to say, "Are you going to vote for it or against it?" That is not what I mean. What I am looking for is not factious opposition, but principle in debate. We have had a potpourri of opinion in connection with this legislation.
This morning the Leader of the Opposition said he rejected this extreme and he rejected that extreme. I wonder if any of us know exactly where the Liberal opposition stands on this legislation at the moment. The only thing for which I appeal, sir, is just a little consistency in debate. If we go back into history, I might say that in the years shortly after confederation they laughed at the western vision of the party of confederation, of Cartier and Macdonald, to open the west; they laughed and they called our northern vision igloo to igloo. Now, sir, while they are not doing it out loud in front of the Canadian people, they are laughing at this piece of legislation in a cynical, sophisticated and overly-intellectual way. I believe that every freedom-loving Canadian is calling for this 
legislation at the present time. I know that they would like it to be said that they gave this legislation bi-partisan support.
However, it seems to me that I have these notes which I made during the debate. They have called it "puny"; they have called it window dressing. I tell them to make these remarks to many of the new Canadians whom I met in western Canada just a few weeks ago. These people, in the months and years gone by in other lands, knew the real meaning of these freedoms and they will not take these remarks so lightly.
The hon. member for Hull demanded more inspiration in this legislation which he felt should be more in the nature of a declaratory instrument. We are not dealing with declarations this afternoon, we are dealing with a law on the statute books. If he wants inspirational declarations I ask him to look at many of the pronouncements made by the Prime Minister in the years gone by.
I should like at this time to make one remark. I hope the hon. member for Hull realizes that when he makes what I consider on many occasions are overly partisan remarks about the Prime Minister and the office of the Prime Minister in this country, not even the members of his own party smile while he smiles. I think I am speaking for everybody in this house in a bi-partisan way when I as the member for Brome-Missisquoi ask him to stop these overly partisan attacks on the office of the Prime Minister. He did it this morning, and he did it again in debate, and I feel that even the members of his own party do not appreciate these remarks.
I do not believe I am enunciating principles of narrow nationalism when I say that I feel legislation of this type should be dealt with by Canadians in the Canadian House of Commons. Getting more directly to the point, I would say it has been advocated by the Leader of the Opposition that a constitutional amendment is in order. I ask the hon. member for Hull, a man who is often preoccupied with many of the theories of divide and rule in this house, how can he go back to the people of his constituency-I know he would not- and say that he advocated a policy which would require this type of legislation to be passed at Westminster. One of the arguments raised by the Leader of the Opposition in his initial speech in the House of Commons was that future legislation in this Canadian House of Commons could nullify the legislation which is before us. But if a constitutional amendment were in order, possibly the same thing could be said of legislation passed by the British House of Commons at Westminster.

Again, it is just talk; it is ridiculous. I ask for consistency in debate. I believe that the Prime Minister in his speech completely covered this point, but the British House of Commons could just as easily, if it were possible and if it were desirable, nullify legislation of the Canadian House of Commons so I should like to bring this point to the attention of all hon. members. As usual, we have seen hon. members in the opposition bring up the following points during the debate: first, important legislation is being introduced late in the session. Then they made reference to the fact that we have a large majority. I can say this, and I say it with all sincerity and conviction, never in the history of Canadian parliamentary life have the rights of oppositions been more scrupulously observed. I realize that I am only young in my parliamentary work, but I can only say this: I cannot imagine an opposition being more factious.
The hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) brought up the point that at the time the United Nations declaration of human rights was being discussed no member of the opposition proposed that the government of the day have further consultations with the provinces in order that such legislation might be adopted. He forgot the fact that the Prime Minister did speak out loudly and clearly at that time. What more could be asked of an opposition in the house? This is another straw man brought out before the Canadian people in this House of Commons by the hon. member for Essex East. If this statement were true of that day, the same thing could be said today. Why did the opposition today not press for consultation between the federal government and the provinces in order that their proposed constitutional amendment might be effected? The same situation holds true, so again I plead for what I might call consistency in debate.
I repeat that I shall support this legislation and I shall support it with pride. I feel it is legislation which forms an important link in the progress of human rights for all Canadians. I support it with pride, and I say it is legislation that should be, and is being enacted by Canadians for Canadians in this Canadian House of Commons.


Mr. R. D. C. Stewart (Charlotte):: In rising to take part in this debate I am going to try to be realistic and deal with the matter as I feel it should be dealt with. In speaking in this house on another occasion I endeavoured to outline some of the safeguards which had been placed upon the statute books and which had become part of the law of Canada. The British North America Act defines certain fields in which the federal
Human Rights
parliament is supreme and certain fields in which the provincial legislatures are supreme. In certain fields, there is an overlapping and when we consider Bill No. C-79, which is a bill dealing with human rights and fundamental freedoms, I think we should keep that in mind and not endeavour to try to categorically define all these freedoms.
The proposed bill of rights deals with some of the fundamental freedoms and it distinctly states that it is limited to those fields in which the federal government has exclusive jurisdiction. The fact that in the exercise of those rights there might be some infringement of or some trespassing on the provincial field does not in itself make such legislation invalid.
I listened witn a great deal of interest to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) this morning and I have no serious quarrel with many of the propositions set out by him in his remarks. A great many of them are set out in detail in the Canadian Bar Review, volume XXXVII, which is the report of the committee dealing with the Canadian bill of rights.
The leader of the C.C.F. party set out seven major objections to the proposed bill of rights. Although I do not intend to deal with them in detail, I think I should refer to some of the objections made by him to the introduction of Bill No. C-79 at this time. The first objection was that it was not an amendment to the constitution. We members of parliament who are lawyers know that an amendment to the constitution can only be made in one of two ways, namely by an act of the imperial parliament or by an agreement between the federal government and the provinces. Surely no member of this house would care to revert to colonial days and have the imperial parliament bring in an amendment to the British North America Act.
The Leader of the Opposition referred to an article written by A. N. Carter, Q.C. of the city of Saint John. In that article Mr. Carter does not approve of an amendment to the British North America Act by the imperial parliament. This would take away from the Canadian parliament its jurisdiction over our own act. As to an amendment by an agreement with the provinces, possibly that will come in time. However, I think most members of this House of Commons realize that at the present time an amendment that would be required and would be extensive enough would not meet with the approval of the ten provinces and the federal government.


Murdo William Martin: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Robert Dugald Caldwell Stewart: Yes.

Human Rights


Murdo William Martin: Can the hon. member tell us which erf the ten provinces he feels would object to a bill of rights?


Mr. Slewari:: In reply to the question of the hon. member may I say this. I do not think that possibly is a proper question, whether it is an objection to a bill of rights or whether it is a refusal to amend the British North America Act at this time.


Murdo William Martin: To amend the
British North America Act and permit a bill of rights.


John B. Stewart: That is right. I say that, as I am at present advised, I do not think agreement could be obtained from all ten provinces and it would not necessarily mean that that province would be opposed to a bill of rights.
The hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue), speaking of the proposed bill of rights, referred to the language of the bill. Is that matter so important? We are not dealing with high sounding language; we are dealing with basic concepts. I think we should be realistic enough to realize that any language which expresses basic concepts such as those with which we are dealing should be sufficient.
There has been some criticism of the proposed bill in that it does not deal with basic economic rights. I am suggesting to this House of Commons and to the hon. member that we have come a long way and have done so on the basis of the development of the common law. Our law of Canada was brought to this country by our forefathers as part of their goods and chattels, so to speak. The supreme court of Nova Scotia, in a very old case, decided that the common law of England was brought to this country by our forefathers but none of the statute law except that part which was clearly applicable to the new country at that time. That common law has grown and developed except in so far as it has been modified by statute-I am speaking now of the common law of the provinces-and it is still the common law of Canada and is still in effect except in so far as it has been modified by statute law.
We speak of fundamental freedoms. Freedom is purely relative. We must not confuse freedom with obligations and duties. We must not either confuse freedom with licence and use it in that sense. Freedom is the right to do certain things under the law. As the law develops, so do our obligations and restrictions develop. In order that a full appreciation might be had of Bill No. C-79 we must examine quite closely the freedoms dealt within the bill. The bill states:
-there have always existed and shall continue to exist the following human rights and fundamental freedoms-
We speak glibly at times of the Canadian way of life but many of us fail to realize many of the elements involved in that way of life or to appreciate the sweat and tears that have gone into the making of that way of life. We fail in that appreciation when we rebel against certain enactments or certain restrictions imposed upon us. In a little book entitled "The Changing Law", written by Sir Alfred Denning, one of the lords justices of England, in dealing with the encroachment on human freedom these observations are made:
-what are the true remedies that we must follow? First of all, I believe we must have a vigilant, a resolute and strong parliament... Secondly, I believe that we must maintain a strong and independent judiciary ... absolutely independent of any control at all. I thank God that I believe we have that today, and I think we shall always have it.
The first freedom dealt with in the proposed bill is the right of the individual to life, liberty, or in other words the right to own, acquire and hold property; the freedom to move from place to place and in all other respects to carry on human activities of a purely personal nature. These rights, although we exercise them today, have not always been exercisable by the Canadian people or by the British people. We obtained these at a price and they were first formulated as part of the Magna Carta.
The second freedom in the proposed bill is that we shall have the right under the law not to be subject to discrimination by reason of race, national origin, colour, religion or sex. During the past ten years or a little longer there have been in many parts of the world uprisings as the result of race and religion. Most of us are familiar with the racial struggle now going on in the country to the south and also in the Union of South Africa. I have in mind the statement made by the late Clarence Darrow, that great criminal lawyer in the country to the south, when defending coloured people at a trial, and I think these words and this attitude must have been prevalent and before the Prime Minister when he drafted the bill of rights. These are his words:
The right to defend your home, the right to defend your person, is as sacred a right as any human being could fight for, and as sacred a cause as any jury could sustain. This issue not only involves the defendants in this case, but it involves every man who wants to live, every man who wants freedom to work and to breathe; it is an issue worth fighting for, and worth dying for. It is an issue worth the attention of this jury who have a chance that is given to few juries to pass upon a real case that will mean something in the history of a race.

Ihe proposed bill of rights also deals with freedom of religion. This is the right to worship when and in what manner the supreme being of our individual choice. Sir Alfred Denning in his book "Freedom under the law" has expressed the same thought in these words, which are more eloquent than any of mine:
We have attained to as high, if not higher, a degree of religious freedom than any other country. We are free to worship or not to worship, to affirm the existence of God or to deny it, to believe in the Christian religion or in any other religion or in none, just as we choose. It has taken us a long time to attain this freedom. For many centuries the judges held that Christianity was part of the law of the land, so much so that any denial of the existence of God amounted to the offence of blasphemy punishable in the criminal courts of the land. You will find it stated in the law books that it is an offence to use language having a tendency to bring the Christian religion or the Bible into contempt;-
We have also in this proposed bill freedom of speech. This is one of the freedoms that we are more familiar with, because on freedom of speech depends the democracy of our governements and our institutions. This was very well expressed by the last Chief Justice Duff in the Alberta case.
We have heard a great deal today on the constitutional question as to the interrelated duties and obligations arising out of the assignment of certain powers under the British North America Act to the federal parliament and to the assignment of certain powers, duties and obligations to the provincial legislatures. It is true that there is in the British North America Act an assignment and a setting aside of certain powers; but, as I will endeavour later to explain, those topics do not necessarily mean that they are all excluded.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
Robert Dugald Caldwell Stewart: Mr. Speaker, at six o'clock I had begun to refer briefly to the headings enumerated under the British North America Act.
I frankly admit that some considerable difficulty arises in this field. The learned law lords of the privy council have themselves run into a good deal of difficulty over the years, and I appreciate the feelings of the Leader of the Opposition when he says that the subject has a great deal of confusion attached to it. But is that sufficient ground for refusing to enact a bill or to question the
Human Rights
validity of a statute? The Leader of the Opposition suggested that a reference should be made to the Supreme Court of Canada to test the validity of this bill. Would it not be better, to wait and then have the bill tested in the light of the situation existing at the time?
We are not dealing with something that can be pigeon-holed. We are dealing with fundamental human rights characterized by individual responsibility and individual feelings and sentiment and I suggest that we should go along with this bill and judge it in the light of developments. There is an old saying that we must walk before we can run. By passing this bill, inadequate as we may think it is we shall be making a start in trying to set up a basis for the development of basic and fundamental freedoms, something which will meet the needs of the present time.


Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldl-Melfori):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in the debate on Bill No. C-79, for the recognition and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms, I should like to state at the outset that it is not my intention to discuss the legal aspects of this measure. That will be done by others who have the proper training to deal with legal and constitutional matters. Rather I should like to make some observations and to express an opinion on the proposed enactment from the standpoint of a new Canadian and one who has desired all his life to see enacted the high principles incorporated in the bill which is before the house at the present time.
Dominion day, July 1, 1960, when our Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) introduced a bill of rights, was indeed a historic occasion for the people of Canada, one which had been long overdue. This bill when passed will incorporate the following provisions, as stated in clause 2:
(a)	The right of the individual to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law;
(b)	the right of the individual to protection of the law without discrimination by reason of race, national origin, colour, religion or sex;
(c)	freedom of religion;
(d) freedom of speech;
(e) freedom of assembly and association; and
(f)	freedom of the press.
I listened with great interest to the words of our Prime Minister and was deeply moved by what was said and by what is incorporated in this new bill. If one could realize what it means to the millions of new Canadians

Human Rights
who have come to this country, the greatest portion of whom left their own country of origin for no other reasons than they had no freedom and liberty, then and only then would one understand the meaning of a bill of human rights and fundamental freedoms.
It is true that Canadians as a whole take their freedom for granted; they have always possessed it and it seemed that no need had ever arisen to have it put into statutory legislation. On the other hand, incidents are recorded showing that some of these rights have been infringed during the past few years, as has been stated here in the House of Commons during the present debate. Would it not then be in order to assure the Canadian people, by passing the present measure, that these high principles of our democratic system shall never be infringed and that no Canadian citizen shall ever fear that his liberties may be taken away. During the long history of Canada millions of people have emigrated to this country. One outstanding reason given by these immigrants for coming to Canada is that in most cases they had to leave their own countries because they underwent persecution or were deprived of freedom of religion, freedom of speech and freedom of assembly or association.
In this connection I might say that it is not the easiest thing in the world to become uprooted from your own country of origin, to leave friends and relatives and to start life anew in another country. But to have these liberties and freedoms people have done this in the past and they will do so in the future. They will come to lands like Canada where freedom and liberties are no idle words but are the principles upon which their existence can rest. This is the reason why I am so pleased and grateful to our Prime Minister for introducing in this Canadian parliament the bill of rights.
The new bill of rights, as I see it, will deny the right of any government to interfere with the right of the individual to speak within the law. It will deny anyone the right to prevent a Canadian living his own life within the limits of the law and without regard to race, colour or creed. It will prevent any parliament denying the right of a Canadian to belong to an unpopular minority anywhere in this country. It will deny parliament at present or in the future, however powerful that parliament might be, the right to deny the individual recourse to the courts.
As for myself I must say that Canada has been good to me and my family ever since we came to this country. To me it is a heaven on earth compared to the place I left behind. It has given me the right to live my own personal life in the manner I desire

and allowed my wife and I to bring up our family as we wished. This country has provided us with the means and opportunity to give our children the education of their choice. I hasten to say, that deep down in our hearts we are also aware that we have given our children a foreign nationality which is no fault of the family.
Although this bill in future will protect the minority as much as all other Canadians, nevertheless let me say this: It is a great feeling indeed to know that this provision is incorporated in the new bill of rights to prevent such incidents as happened not so long ago in this country ever happening again under any circumstances. The new bill of rights will assert the individual's right tc life, liberty, security of person, enjoyment of property and to the protection of the law without discrimination as to race, national origin, colour, religion or sex.
This new bill, it is interesting to point out, was introduced on Dominion day, the very day on which the fathers of confederation united the provinces as a nation to be known as the Dominion of Canada. Our Prime Minister in introducing this bill concluded with the hope that the house will support this measure which I shall do wholeheartedly. The hon. gentleman expressed the belief that the bill embodies a pledge for all Canadians, a pledge which he placed before us and which I am greatly honoured to repeat as follows:
I am a Canadian, a free Canadian, free to speak without fear, free to worship God in my own way, free to stand for what I think right, free to oppose what I believe wrong, free to choose those who shall govern my country. This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold for myself and all mankind-
-So help me God.


John Russell Taylor: Mr. Speaker, it is a genuine honour to follow in this debate the hon. gentleman who just resumed his seat and who made such a very sincere address. I certainly did not plan to speak on this bill but after hearing the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) speak so eloquently and sincerely in introducing this bill I decided that when history was in the making-as in my opinion it was on Friday last-I wanted to make some contribution however small it might be.
I always regret that upon these great occasions-and when the Prime Minister spoke last Friday it was a great occasion- more people cannot see or hear the drama that is unfolding in this chamber. The Prime Minister's speech last Friday was one that could well have been televised and certainly it was one for posterity. Possibly in the days to come keynote addresses

such as that given by the Prime Minister and the reply by the spokesman for the opposition parties could be given wider scope through being televised. Although the Prime Minister's mother cannot come to the chamber because of ill health television could reach her. Here in itself would be history in the making for I do not believe that any Canadian prime minister has occupied that office while his mother was still living.
It was an historic occasion for me when Prime Minister Macmillan spoke here and also when President Eisenhower addressed us in this chamber. I will not forget their addresses nor will I forget the address of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister's bill of rights has been distilled from the sweat of years and represents, as he said:
-the achievement and the assurance of that degree of liberty and freedom under the law that was envisaged by the fathers of confederation.
The previous bill dealing with the same subject was sharply criticized by a segment -and I underline "segment"-of the press as well as by lawyers and others. Certainly the opportunity existed to withdraw it but with greater vigour the government has pursued it.
All hon. members, I suppose, have a subject which becomes with them a specialty, and so it is with the Prime Minister. He is best known for his interest in this bill and the more you study his life the more you come to realize that here is a man who knows what he is talking about as a result of heartaches and experience. Here is a man who is giving leadership to one of the bigger issues of the day. As the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Smith) has said, this is one of the bigger issues of the day.
I was moved by some of the references made by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) to cases involving the violation of civil liberties. These instances have long been embarrassing to us in British Columbia. As the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Green) has said, the hon. member for Vancouver East knows in his heart of hearts that this bill represents a step in the right direction.
The Prime Minister told the house about the indignities suffered by the Japanese-Canadians-who are as Canadian as any hon. member of this house-under our democratic system. I can well remember the time when they were conveyed to the immigration building in Vancouver in wooden colonial railroad coaches, the type of coach which in later years the Prime Minister referred to in a celebrated case which I believe involved a telegrapher at Blind River.
Human Rights
I remember that many of the Japanese Canadians were unable to be housed in the immigration building; they were housed in colonial cars for days on end while R.C.M.P. officers patrolled the cars, mind you, to see that no Canadian wandered away. Many gave as much attention to their rights in those days as some give to the local traffic ordinances.
The record books show that the right hon. gentleman, while able to command the richest of fees, was happiest when he took the cases of immigrant Canadians, including the relocated Japanese in world war II, of whom I have been speaking, whose civil liberties were impaired or threatened. Over the years the name of the right hon. gentleman has been associated with civil liberties. I ask all hon. members to search the record books of the proceedings of the civil liberties section of the Canadian Bar Association and they will see what he has said from time to time over the years. From my own personal experience I can recall when he spoke to very small groups, not with the press around, of a committee of the civil liberties section. He spoke so sincerely that I am sure all the lawyers present were most appreciative of his remarks and knew that he spoke sincerely. His name in actuality also gave him an identification with the immigrant minorities.
You will probably find-certainly our records will show-that the right hon. gentleman received 90 per cent of the votes of the ethnic groups who regard themselves for whatever reason as Canada's outsiders looking in. After reading his address, I am sure they will know that he is fulfilling a promise to them. Is it not those people in particular, as well as all other Canadians, that the right hon. gentleman has in mind when he urges us to pass this bill, a bill which is most assuredly a step in the right direction.
There are many of us who take our liberties for granted, such as freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of the press and other freedoms to which the Prime Minister has referred but, as the Prime Minister has pointed out, our freedoms can be whittled away even under our present laws and over the years they have been curtailed. Today the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) referred to some of the proceedings of the civil liberties section of the Canadian Bar Association. I also ask hon. members to read the addresses given by the presidents of the Canadian Bar Association and see what they have said about liberties and rights and those rights being whittled away unless attention is given to the law. The Prime Minister has put the facts on the record and he simply says "Let's not let it happen again".

Human Rights
The Prime Minister can through personal experience relate the feelings of so many fine western Canadian settlers during the first world war, those who still had direct ties with their British and European homelands. The battlefields to them never seemed remote. The war opened old wounds; traditional antagonisms were renewed. In that atmosphere a neighbour's name mattered. Was it not at this time that the Prime Minister made passionate declarations against hyphenated citizenship, and many years later-yes, when he delivered his first speech here in the House of Commons-he was still fighting against registration of Canadians according to paternal racial origin. Today I took the opportunity of reading his first address. Incidentally, he had asked other questions in the house prior to June 13, 1940; but in his first major address he did in fact deal with the liberties of Canadians. At one point he said, when referring to the census, as reported at page 749 of Hansard:
My criticism of the census is that, regardless of the number of generations that have elapsed or the admixtures of nationality that have taken place during 40, 50, 75 or 125 years, so long as persons must register under the nationality of their paternal ancestor, there will never be that Cana-dianism which we wish to establish.
In the field of religion, here is a man who knows what liberties are. I did have some time over the week end to read about some of the cases in which he was engaged over the years, and my attention was drawn to an appeal in the criminal courts handled by the Prime Minister some twenty-odd years ago in the province of Saskatchewan, a case involving religious rights. The right hon. gentleman conducted the appeal; the appeal was successful and the conviction was quashed.
I should like to refer to an editorial in the Vancouver Province of Tuesday, April 8, 1958, dealing with a Canadian bill of rights. The editorial says:
The need for a Canadian bill of rights has been debated for a long time. But nothing has ever been done about it.
Now, fortunately, a go-ahead signal to apply new policies has been given to a Prime Minister who, before he achieved this office, was a great champion of a bill to set out and protect the basic freedoms and privileges of Canadian citizens.
Canadians, therefore, are looking for this long-awaited reform, and expect it without any great delay.
The reason why a bill of rights has not been incorporated into our constitution is simple, though it is seldom frankly acknowledged.
It is because it is the nature of government to reach always for more and more power. It is also *-and this we should recognize clearly-because in latter times people have been looking more and more to governments to solve a large number of the problems of modern life.
Yet freedom for the citizen is basically a matter of resisting the enroachment of governmental

power over his life. If he does not preserve absolutely certain fundamental rights he is no longer a free citizen.
Some argue, and will continue to argue, that the fundamental rights which the Prime Minister has mentioned are inherent in our constitution and legal system. Yet as the Prime Minister and others, including the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch), have pointed out today, there have been any number of cases down the years where citizens of Canada have not been protected in these rights by existing processes of law. The real value of the bill lies in the fact that it does limit the capacity of the government to circumscribe and diminish the rights of private citizens.
I do not know how many statutes of the federal government will be affected when the bill is passed, but it will certainly put an end to many of the unfair practices and procedures under the Immigration Act. Passage of the bill may automatically, and to a degree, give us a new Immigration Act. May I say that so far as the practices and procedures under that act are concerned, if this bill has that effect upon that statute this again is one more reason why I support the bill wholeheartedly.
May I draw hon. members' attention to clause 3(e) of the bill which deals with the right to a fair hearing for the determination of rights. This clause will have a bearing on section 3 of the Immigration Act, for under that act persons who allege Canadian citizenship are still examined outside of Canada to test this important matter. I confess it is a wonderful thing to be able to say "I am a Canadian". Clearly when a person alleges that some tribunal should be set up to allow that person to prove whether he is a Canadian citizen or, for that matter, whether he has Canadian domicile. Section 3 will also affect those who allege Canadian domicile.
Undoubtedly the bill of rights will check the unfettered discretion of the minister. I do not mean to criticize her in any way, but I am sure all of us would like to see some system set up whereby these rights can be brought before boards and tribunals. In this way we might well rid ourselves of many of the cases which appear on the front pages of newspapers and in which one judge after another condemns the system that is in operation.
Section 4 of the Immigration Act deals with loss of Canadian domicile. Under that section the minister is the sole judge of whether or not a Canadian resident has the intention of making his permanent home outside of Canada. Under the present act no provision is made for a hearing. I presume that section 3 of the new bill of rights will provide for a fair hearing.



I960

[Stage Direction]
Once out of the country the returning Canadian resident can be barred for indefinite periods until the immigration officer abroad is convinced there was no intention to give up Canadian domicile. As I mentioned, there is certainly no criticism of the officers, my criticism is directed only to the act and the regulations under which they operate.
Section 9 of the Immigration Act is a section to which I should like to refer because of the effect which this bill of rights will have upon the Immigration Act in particular. This section of the act gives the minister certain powers to land an immigrant, among other things, providing such landing is not contrary to the public interest. The minister again has sole discretion to decide what is and what is not in the public interest. Should the immigrant want to challenge this absolute power as it relates to this section, or any other section of the act, he is met with section 33 which prohibits the courts from interfering. This is the celebrated section of the Immigration Act which pretty well bars courts and judges from interfering.
Section 16 of Canada's Immigration Act provides for an immigration officer, without the issue of a warrant, arresting and detaining those persons referred to in that section. What about these powers in the light of the provisions of this bill of rights?
Section 3 (d) of the bill of rights is going to have a profound effect on section 20 of the Immigration Act, for it has become the practice-
Paul Joseph James Martin: Will my hon.
friend permit a question? He is an experienced lawyer. Will he be good enough to explain how this bill will in any way affect any of the sections of the act to which he has referred, having in mind the fact that the decision in future cases will be made by courts which will have before them a specific section in the bill to which my hon. friend directs the attention of the house and this bill just refers to certain freedoms in very general terms?


John Russell Taylor: I may say that the Immigration Act gives rights mainly to Canadian and to people or residents of Canada who possess Canadian domicile, and it has long been felt that those who do not come within these categories have no rights whatever. The bill of rights does not speak of Canadians or Canadian residents, it simply affirms that any person who is within the boundaries of Canada has now got certain rights. I think that over the years the immigration department has felt that persons seeking admission at ports of entry are not even in Canada, as has so often been stated by the district
Human Rights
superintendents. I hope I have answered, to a degree, the question asked by the hon. member.
Section 22 (1) of the Immigration Act will be affected by the bill of rights, and rightly so. Here the immigration officer can order a person out of Canada if that person cannot be immediately examined because of sickness or other cause. I ask hon. members if they would at some early date refer to section 22 (1) to ascertain the powers of an immigration officer under that section. It could happen that a traveller, for example, arriving at Vancouver from Mexico could be returned all the way to Mexico at great expense and humiliation if that person were ill. I do not say this would happen and I do not say it has happened, but the power is there to send that person all the way back to Mexico if he arrives at a port of entry in that state.
Section 23 of the Immigration Act says that where an immigration officer, after examination of a person at a border point, is satisfied that a person does not qualify for admission he can then detain that person and bring about a board of inquiry. It is at this time, and not before, that counsel is permitted. Under the new bill of rights there is a provision to the effect that a person once detained under any law has the right to request counsel. Up until now persons arriving at ports of entry have not been able to retain counsel until after the case has been referred to a board of inquiry. This new bill is certainly going to be a step in the right direction in that regard.
Section 24 of the Immigration Act will be affected by the bill of rights. At the moment a person travelling from Alaska to Vancouver could have a deportation order made against him without that type of hearing afforded to others under the previous sections of the act. This person, for example, could be returned to Alaska. The bill of rights, because it affects any person in Canada-this may answer the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin)-will create new rights for that person.
I am not going to refer to any more of the sections, but may I refer to section 27 (1) of the Immigration Act which says that an inquiry by a special inquiry officer shall be separate and apart from the public but in the presence of the person concerned wherever it is practicable. Another subsection says that the special inquiry officer may at the hearing receive and base his decision upon evidence considered credible or trustworthy by him in the circumstances of each case. My only comment is that under section 27 (1) the inquiry could take place without the presence of the applicant. Under the new bill the applicant, of course, would

Human Rights
have to be present. This long established practice of the department would go by the boards.
Section 29 of the Immigration Act allows an officer to hear a case, make a decision and later on reopen it and make a different decision should he deem it necessary. My only comment is that he purports to do this after a decision was made and if the courts could do this there would be sheer chaos. I understand that once this bill comes into force that practice would no longer be applicable.
Section 30 of the Immigration Act-


Mr. Speaker:: Order; I thought the hon. member was perhaps nearing the end and I did not wish to interrupt him unnecessarily, but it seems to me he is applying the principle of the bill as it will affect statutes now on the books and, by way of illustration, has referred to the Immigration Act. I should remind the hon. member we are not debating the Immigration Act. His references would be in order by way of illustration, but it seems to me that to go through the whole act would be going beyond the scope of this debate.


John Russell Taylor: I thank you, Mr. Speaker. I shall not refer to any more sections of the act. I might say that I have been interested in amendments to this act for such a long time that when we are now dealing with a bill of rights which will probably contain provisions affecting this act, many of us will be extremely pleased to know that possibly these old procedures will be a thing of the past.
If, as the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mrs. Fairclough) has said, a new bill is to be introduced, I hope it will be in line with the bill of rights; and I imagine that it will be, although I cannot be sure. For that reason I should like to commend the Prime Minister for continuing to fight for this bill. I think it will bring about tremendous relief throughout the country.


Mr. Romuald Bourque (Ouiremoni-St. Jean):: Mr. Speaker, I had really no intention of entering this debate until I read the editorial in the Montreal Star of June 30 which brought to my attention the fact that this bill had been brought in very late in the session. I am not denying the contention of the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) that we probably need a change in the constitution, or that we should have a change provided for in the bill of rights. Time is going on. It is a long time since we have had a change in the constitution. But Bill No. C-79, an act for the recognition and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms is too important a bill to be brought in in the dying days of the session and for us to be asked

to study this bill carefully and to pass upon it in the matter of a few days. The editorial in the Montreal Star of June 30, 1960 stated as follows:	*
Since Mr. Diefenbaker first mooted his idea most of the threats have been dissipated by judgments of the courts. These judgments have shown that the fundamental rights Mr. Diefenbaker seeks to safeguard are already protected by either law or custom.
It was altogether laudable that Mr. Diefenbaker, when he first introduced his bill, should delay its passage so that the public might study and discuss it... There was nothing to suggest in Monday's presentation that the Prime Minister intends the bill to go to committees of both houses for study. It should. It should not be passed in haste at the end of the session, although its passage, if it does no good, will do little harm.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is now quoting an editorial commenting on the proceedings within this house, a procedure which is out of order. The earlier part referring to the principle of the bill generally would be acceptable but he should not pursue the quotation to the point where it comments on the conduct of members or the proceedings of this house.


Romuald Bourque: I did not intend to enter into that subject, really, Mr. Speaker, but I think that this bill affects the provinces seriously and that, as the editorial mentioned, the Prime Minister should move toward a constitutional amendment by agreement with the provinces. That is the point I wanted to make and that is why I raised this question of the editorial.
Some time ago-I think it was on April 29, 1959-a delegation composed of 30 important Canadian organizations came to Ottawa and presented a brief to the Prime Minister. These organizations were extremely important ones and I think they were willing to give to the bill the study that it required and they were anxious to make suggestions and representations to the Prime Minister. If this bill is adopted at this session those associations will be deprived of the right they sought, namely the right to make representations and to advise the Prime Minister of what they thought this bill should contain. There is no doubt that they would have constructive suggestions to make if they were given time in which to study the purport of Bill No. C-79.
In their brief on April 29, 1959 they suggested a whole list of human rights and fundamental freedoms which they would have liked to have incorporated in this bill of rights. Conditions have changed in the last 15 months and I am sure that if they were given an opportunity to revise the brief they submitted at that time they would have many more valuable suggestions to submit than those they submitted at that time.

It has taken many years to reach the stage of liberty we now enjoy. We had the charter of liberties in the year 1100 and Magna Carta in the year 1215. Both of the above measures were fought for and extracted by Frenchmen from Frenchmen. The foundations for English liberties were laid by French speaking barons and later written in English. The petition of right in the year 1628 made everyone subject to the law, the king included. The revolution of 1688 drove out James II. He refused to recognize that he was subject to the laws of the land and he lost his throne. Parliament became the supreme body and has since remained so. Later came the declaration of rights which was later changed to the bill of rights which became a statute of the parliament of England. All these great documents form part of our Canadian heritage; they are included in our constitution.
All men are born free and equal, and equally entitled to the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness, free speech, freedom of the press and of religion. That is an inherent right of all Canadians. The constitution of Canada guarantees to the provincial governments many rights. Canada is a federal country. Federalism consists in a guarantee of rights, some powers to the provincial governments, other powers to the federal government. We have a limited sovereignty in Canada. It is not a country of parliament-tary sovereignty. We have in Canada no parliamentary body that is sovereign. The British North America Act divides the powers of the governments.
Before enacting legislation making this new bill of rights law let us make sure that it contains no discrimination of any kind against anyone owing to race, colour, sex, language, religion, political opinion, national or social origin, birth or other status. This bill of rights, Bill No. C-79, to my mind would add nothing to the fundamental rights of the Canadian citizen. I believe the most effective means of safeguarding the rights of Canadian citizens would be by means of amendments to the British North America Act. I believe an interprovincial conference should be held to decide in what fields the federal government might set down human rights legislation. If, as and when the conference has reached an understanding or accord as to the legislation required to protect the rights of all Canadians, then the whole question could be brought before this house for discussion and approval.
The constitutional right of all the provinces must be fully safeguarded. This bill strikes at the very root of our civil code. Quebec is the only province in Canada which has a civil
Human Rights
code of its own. Other provinces are guided in civil matters by British common law and jurisprudence.
This bill, Bill No. C-79, wil no doubt result in juridical chaos and inextricable tangles. We must guard against any bill that would constitute an infringement upon the autonomy of the province of Quebec or conflict with any of its existing laws.
Due to the complexity of the many problems contained in this bill we must not make haste but bide our time, giving careful attention and study to the many problems involved and making sure that it contains all the elementary principles of justice and equity for all so that it can never become a bill of injustice and inequity and a thorn in the side of Canadians. We must make human rights and fundamental freedoms in Canada effective and secure.
Our basic rights and liberties which are part of our inheritance and to which every person in Canada is entitled must be preserved, and only a close study by a commission composed of members of this house and of the Senate can offer the guarantee that our rights will be enhanced and not diminished, having in mind the inherent dignity and worth of the human person and the inalienable rights which derive therefrom.
It would take too long and I would take up too much time of the house to give a full list of the human rights and fundamental freedoms which I believe Canadian citizens should be granted. I have no doubt that other hon. members feel as I do, that in order to be able thoroughly to discuss this most important legislation it should be handed over to a commission or a committee that would have full power to call witnesses and to give all the items derived therefrom its most careful consideration. Two full days given to the consideration of such a bill is ridiculous; it should take at least ten days and receive long study.
For this reason, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest it be sent to a conference or commission as I proposed previously so that justice and freedom may prevail.


Mr. H. F. Jones (Saskatoon):: Mr. Speaker, to be in the House of Commons on an occasion such as this is a rare privilege. It is a privilege to participate in making history. Not only is this so because of the contents of the bill before us and the struggle which has been waged in the past by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) to bring this bill about, but surely it is a historic occasion for another reason. This Canadian bill of rights is not forced upon a reluctant government as has been the experience with measures of this kind in other countries in the past. It is

Human Rights
brought before the house by the government, the leader of the government, and if anything it is forced upon a reluctant opposition.
I am sure there are many who recall the earlier comments of the Prime Minister over the years on the necessity for this bill. About a decade ago when I was at law school in Saskatoon the students there were addressed by the then member for Lake Centre. On that occasion he dealt with the historic rights and civil liberties which are part of our heritage, and I said then that if there was anything I could do to help that man I would do it. That sentiment in return found its response in the hearts of millions of Canadians, and those today who decry this measure would do well to remember that fact.
The separation of the grass from the brass has been the subject of much comment by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) and his party, and it is evident that it still exists today. They are unable to understand the importance and significance of this bill to the ordinary and little people of Canada. May I draw to your attention, Mr. Speaker, the words of the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort (Mr. Rapp), who testified to the real significance of this measure to new Canadians, and indeed to all Canadians. The hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Taylor) dealt with some of the effects of this bill in remedying long standing injustices.
The position taken by the Leader of the Opposition is on all sides of the question. He is for the principle of the bill. He seems to be against the bill itself. He says it is meaningless, and others of his followers said "Oh, it will affect the provinces". In effect the Leader of the Opposition says "They are mere words meaning nothing", and then he spoke for over an hour to prove it. One of his followers said that the words of the bill are not inspiring enough. The Leader of the Opposition said that we should have something like the universal declaration of human rights, that it should be a ringing declaration; yet in the same breath he claimed that the present bill was not prosaic enough to contain the sort of sanctions he seemed to envision were necessary in this type of legislation. He said the bill should have been introduced long ago; in other words, he is against its introduction now. There is not enough time to consider it, he says, and then goes on to request that not only this bill be dealt with but that the War Measures Act should also be dealt with in extenso. He said that we should re-write the War Measures Act now. I think every hon. member of the house would like to consider the provisions of the War Measures Act and review them, but surely it is possible to do one thing at a time.
[Mr. Jones. 1
The Leader of the Opposition said that the bill should be embodied in the constitution; that is to say, he wants it to apply in the field of provincial jurisdiction. The hon. member who has just spoken claims, not that the bill is meaningless but that it infringes provincial jurisdiction. They are all over the shop on this bill. They are most unhappy about it. They were in government for 22 years but did nothing about it.


Mr. Deschatelets:: We are very happy about it.


Henry Frank Jones: We are glad we finished it so that we can get down to dealing with some of the serious problems in this country.
Mr. Speaker, they say that the bill is not necessary, yet at the same time they say it goes too far and then in the next breath say it does not go far enough. Embodying these things in the constitution to affect federal jurisdiction only would allow them to be changed, as the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) has pointed out on other occasions, much more easily than if they were embodied in the bill before us.
I should like to deal with some of the contradictory allegations that have been made. First, I should like to refer to one made by the Leader of the Opposition. With the highest approbation he quoted some of the words of Professor Lower. As reported at page 5650 of Hansard, he described Professor Lower as a very jealous, sensitive and vigorous guardian of liberty and freedom in this country. I am acquainted with Professor Lower, and I know he enjoys the high esteem of many Canadians and has done so for many years, but the Leader of the Opposition did not quote all the professor had to say about this bill. The reference which was made by the Leader of the Opposition was taken from a resume of a panel discussion on a basis for a charter of human rights held at the University of Ottawa on January 20. On that occasion Professor Lower had this to say;
Our bill of rights will touch on the question of civil liberties-
Then he went on to make a distinction between liberties and rights.
-and as such X suspect it will affect the whole country. It will be a great statement of principle. It will be comparable to the American declaration of independence.
Then what did' the professor say in connection with the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition about incorporating this into the constitution? He said on that occasion:
I recognize the weakness of a simple statute instead of the constitutional method, but I recognize also the impossibility of getting this latter at present.

That was the opinion of the authority quoted by the Leader of the Opposition. What is the value of the bill of rights? Professor Lower again says:
My point is that if you enunciate a great principle which is intrinsically sound, sooner or later your law will be shaped accordingly, and sooner or later you will begin to think accordingly, too.
Then Professor Lower refers to some of the great declarations which have been made in the past. He says:
It was a very great fortune of the English speaking people to found institutions which would embody freedom. It is those institutions under which we live today; our parliamentary government is only one, our trial by jury is another one, the presumption of any man's innocence until, by a free trial, he is proved guilty, and there are so many others.
What about the contention that this bill should be entrenched? I should like to quote from an address given by the Minister of Justice on February 18 last on the occasion of the first annual dinner of the law society of the University of Western Ontario. On page 11 of the report of the address the hon. gentleman is reported as saying:
One of the most persistent recommendations which we have received is that the bill of rights should be placed, or "entrenched", in the constitution, thereby to curtail the powers of parliament or of the provincial legislatures, or both, to encroach upon, amend or repeal the rights it enunciates. Let us first dispense with the question of provincial legislatures. As you may know, our draft bill extends only to matters which concern the federal constitution. This is because we believe that the principle of provincial autonomy-which is so very basic to our constitution-does not permit us to force our conclusions, much less our methods, upon other freely elected governments. Indeed, so firmly do we believe in the absolute necessity for respect of provincial integrity that the greatest possible care has been taken in drafting the Canadian bill of rights to avoid infringing the rights of provincial governments.
I shall not deal with the other points which have been made about the inclusion of these provisions within the constitution, since they have already been dealt with. The Leader of the Opposition said something about sanctions. He said the bill should provide sanctions. If we refer to clause 3 of the bill we shall find it clearly sets forth how the rights therein mentioned are to be preserved for the people. The clause reads, in part:
All the acts of the parliament of Canada enacted before or after the commencement of this part, all orders, rules and regulations thereunder, and all laws in force in Canada or in any part of Canada at the commencement of this part that are subject to be repealed, abolished or altered by the parliament of Canada, shall, unless it is otherwise expressly stated in any act of the parliament of Canada hereafter enacted, be so construed and applied as not to abrogate, abridge or infringe or to authorize the abrogation, abridgement or infringement of any of the rights or freedoms recognized by this part, and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing-*
Human Rights
That is where provision is made for the effective enforcement of this bill.
The hon. member for Hull (Mr. Caron) thought that the bill was not inspired; indeed, he thought it was dull. I think the hon. member for Hull would be well advised to read some of the great statements on this theme which have been our heritage, passing down to us through long generations the freedoms which we call ours today. All these were not in language distinguished by ringing terms. The words in the Canadian bill of rights are clear. They are meant to serve a purpose. I should like to refer, by way of example, to the words of Magna Carta which has been the very foundation of our liberty from an early time. Here are some of the words used in that document-not inspiring language, but words which inspire because of the importance we attach to them. Section 17 of the charter says, for example:
Common pleas shall not follow our court, but shall be held in some fixed place.
Section 23 provides:
No community or individual shall be compelled to make bridges at river banks, except those who from of old were legally bound to do so.
Section 38 states:
No bailiff for the future shall put any man to his "law" upon his own mere words of mouth, without credible witnesses brought for this purpose.
Not until we reach section 39 do we come to the great words which are enshrined in our memory.
No freeman shall be arrested, or detained in prison, or deprived of his freehold, or outlawed, or banished, or in any way molested; and we will not set forth against him nor send against him, unless by the lawful judgment of his peers and by the law of the land.
In other words, you have to read the enactment to see what these phrases really mean and to get the value from them. It is said that our Canadian bill of rights does not claim or make any new rights. We look back to the bill of rights passed in 1689 in the United Kingdom. Were they asking for new rights on that occasion? Here is a portion of the wording of that act:
An act for declaring the rights and liberties of the subject, and settling the succession of the crown-
They called parliament together-
-to meet and sit at Westminster upon the two and twentieth day of January, in this year one thousand six hundred eighty and eight, in order to such an establishment, as that their religion, laws, and liberties might not again be in danger of being subverted; upon which letters, elections have been accordingly made,
And thereupon the said lords spiritual and temporal, and commons, pursuant to their respective letters and elections, being now assembled in a full and free representative of this nation, taking into their most serious consideration the

Human Rights
best means for attaining the ends aforesaid; do in the first place (as their ancestors in like case have usually done) for the vindicating and asserting their ancient rights and liberties, declare-
Then there follows the specific provisions of the bill of rights proclaiming the ancient rights and liberties of the people as we are proclaiming them here today.
What is the significance of this measure?
I was interested in reviewing the United States declaration of independence. This is not mere words as the Leader of the Opposition described the documents. The United States declaration of independence commences with these words:
When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitled them, a decent respect for the opinions of mankind, requires, that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
They thought it was important in the process of the nation-building to declare the causes which had set them forth on that mission. Some have said that at the time of the founding of Canada brought about by the work of Sir John A. Macdonald and Sir George Etienne Cartier there was in effect a declaration of rights for Canadians. There are those who have asserted that view. May I say if that is so this is another great step taken by another great Canadian. A great Canadian has initiated another important step in the building of the Canadian nation. Ours is no declaration of independence but a declaration of unity in freedom. I submit it is a great step forward in the creation of this nation and one upon which those in the years that follow will be able to look back with pride and say, these things were set forth for all to know so that no one may contravene the rights and liberties of the Canadian people.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question. Does my hon. friend not think that the right to work is also a fundamental right?


Henry Frank Jones: Mr. Speaker, is my hon. friend suggesting that we should start infringing upon provincial legislation in the field of labour? What other specific provisions would the hon. gentleman have us infringe upon?


Mr. F. J. Bigg (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot in this debate about whether or not we should have a written bill of rights. A written bill of rights is not new among Anglo-Saxon people. We can go back to the Magna Carta which is perhaps the keystone of all our freedom. This was a written bill which has been re-enacted in the British parliament no less than 30 times.

This indicates that we need not only a written bill but what I would call a living statute and we need' to start on it now.
There are several reasons why I say we need to start now. Perhaps up to this time we have not been aware of the real need for a bill of this nature. It has been said that we need no written bill because England did not have one. England has had one for many years. Not only has that country had the Magna Carta, it has the statutes of Westminster. The latest statute of Westminster was enacted in 1931 but there were no less than three in the 13th century, the first in 1275, the second in 1285, completed in 1288, and the third in 1290.
At the time James II left the British throne in 1688 William and Mary were called in. It was found necessary at that time to re-afflrm British rights and freedoms in the bill of rights of 1689.
Again I pose the question: Why should we enact a bill of rights now? It is because we are a federal nation. When you have a federal nation it is difficult to delineate clearly the rights of the federal power and the rights of the provincial power. It is up to the federal power to show the way. We want to pass this bill to show that the dominion government is out in front, that it is ready to give a lead to the provinces. No one here today has objected to the list of freedoms enumerated except to say that the list is not long enough. This may be so. I personally would like to see, if possible, a bill of rights which would bring in all the freedoms of the United Nations charter and more. I should like to see Canada foremost in the whole world in her list of freedoms but I am making a plea that we make a start now.
I have heard great arguments about the use of words. This is not a flowery bill. We have very few flowery phrases in this bill about "judicial difficulties" and "inextricable complications". But the great charters of the world that have changed global thinking have been couched in very simple language. Moses gave us a charter of morals and freedoms: thou shalt not kill. What would a man say if he came to Canada and was given the freedoms we enjoy? He would say: I am free. What do a man and wife say when they are taking on the most solemn of contracts? I will, or I do. These are not flowery words but think of the implications. Think of the changes they make in human lives. I am suspicious of long and flowery phrases and inextricable complications. When you have a bill containing such words you will certainly have inextricable complications.
I like to see a bill full of words like "I am free; free to use my property; free to

speak; free to assemble with my friends; free to go to the church of my choice; free to spend my own money when and where I like; free to go to sleep at night and not wait for that knock at the door." In some countries you are not even taken to court, you are taken out in the back yard and stood up against the wall. I am not talking about ancient history. Think of Cuba today. Where are the oil interests in Cuba? Can a person in that country say, "I am free?" You can say that in Canada and I think it is time we put it on paper if for no other reason than to demonstrate how proud we are to be able to stand up and say, "I am free." When we answer the question, "Are we free Canadians?" the answer is yes. Let us put it on paper.
I am as aware if not more aware than most hon. members that you have full freedom only when you have an incorruptible police force. It is of no use to have a criminal law which is as near perfect as possible, tried and tested in the British tradition and backed up by the common law if you do not have enforcing these laws men whom you can trust and courts in which you can have complete confidence. We are here today mainly to see whether we intend to keep them.
In this day of unrest when other nations are sliding, when they believe in nothing or, if they believe in something they have not the courage to stand up and say they do, this is a day when we can take action and put on paper in simple words as simple, honest men a few of the freedoms we believe in. We are absolutely sure that we can pass a law in our federal capacity, and we should say that we intend to stand behind it.
I do not think it is any accident that this bill was introduced by such a man as our present Prime Minister who has shown by his whole life that he believes in the little man and the big rights of the little man. In his cabinet he has no fewer than 14 veterans, men who at the time they were needed answered the call without compulsion and stood alongside a flag they loved and fought for a country they loved. They acted and they did not rely on high, flowery words.
Therefore, it is a great pleasure for me to stand here tonight and add my small voice to that of those who have already backed this bill. I hope it will be only the first of many steps in giving to Canada a complete bill of rights federally and provincially which will show light to all men.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Human Rights
any of those great charters that I have mentioned, and whether it would not be possible for any parliament to revoke a constitutional amendment incorporated in the British North America Act? What parliament can do, parliament can undo.
This bill is a major step forward, and eventually perhaps it may be written into our constitution, but this is the only means by which we can achieve this very necessary advance at this time. The Leader of the Opposition said that this is a purely declaratory bill and could be changed by any future parliament. I think what I have said is the answer to that.
The history of the struggle to enact a bill of rights went on in 1946, 1947 and 1948, but I was particularly taken by 1947 when there was a debate in this house in regard to setting up a joint committee of the House of Commons and the Senate, and with the words of the minister who introduced the resolution, the Hon. Ian Mackenzie, at page 3140 of Hansard of May 16, 1947. Part of the resolution reads:
And, in particular, in the light of the provisions contained in the charter of the United Nations, and the establishment by the economic and social council thereof of a commission on human rights, what is the legal and constitutional situation in Canada with respect to such rights, and what steps, if any, it would be advisable to take or to recommend for the purpose of preserving in Canada respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms;
Please note, Mr. Speaker, that this resolution seems to imply that certain action should be taken by Canada and that this committee-we have been talking about setting up committees-that was talked about on May 15, 1947 was set up to bring forward recommendations to this parliament as to what should be done in the way of implementation of a charter of the United Nations in regard to human rights and fundamental freedoms. That committee met in 1947; it met again in 1948. The final committee met in 1950. The 1947 and 1948 committees were joint committees, but the 1950 committee was a committee of the Senate. I should like to refer for a moment to the final report of the 1950 committee, page 306, where it is stated:
Your committee therefore recommends that, as an interim measure, the Canadian parliament adopt a declaration of human rights to be strictly limited to its own legislative jurisdiction. Such a declaration would not invade the provincial legislative authority, but it would nevertheless cover a very wide field. While such a declaration would not bind the Canadian parliament or future Canadian parliaments, it would serve to guide the Canadian parliament and the federal civil service. It would have application within all the important matters reserved to the Canadian parliament in section 91

and in other sections of the British North America Act. It would apply without limitation within the Northwest Territories.
The reason this recommendation was written in this manner will become very clear as I go along and try to outline the history of the fight to enact a bill of rights in Canada. The next chapter occurs on April 9, 1948, when the Right Hon. J. L. Ilsley, minister of justice, moved the following motion on behalf of the prime minister, as recorded on page 2842 of Hansard of that date:
That it is expedient to appoint a joint committee of both houses of parliament to consider the question of human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the manner in which those obligations accepted by all members of the United Nations may best be implemented;
And, in particular, in the light of the provisions contained in the charter of the United Nations, and the establishment by the economic and social council thereof of a commission on human rights, what is the legal and constitutional-
These are the important words.
-situation in Canada with respect to such rights, and what steps, if any, it would be advisable to take or to recommend for the purpose of preserving in Canada respect for the observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms;
It is interesting to note the names of the members on that committee, particularly the names of those who sit on the treasury benches today. In the discussion of this resolution, the present Prime Minister had this to say, as recorded at page 2846 of Hansard- again, this is a little bit of history, a summation of what had taken place up to that time:
We were circumvented last year in the committee by the constitutional issue being raised on every possible occasion; and the minister tonight reiterated the summation of the answers given by the attorneys general of the provinces and by the deans of the law schools, apparently believing that those answers, coupled with the evidence given before the committee, would once and for all end in this country the crusade for a national bill of rights and would determine as well Canada's position as being unable to discharge her international responsibilities.
The reference to the provinces and to the deans of the law schools is a matter of history, and it is in that debate in Mr. Ilsley's statement of April 9. I shall read from page 2846 of Hansard, where he sums up the replies which the government of that day had received from the various provinces. I think this is extremely important in view of the statements which have been made today by various hon. gentlemen speaking from the other side of the house. What did Mr. Ilsley have to say? He said this:
Before I pass on to deal with the replies of the deans of the law schools, I think I can sum up the result of this correspondence in this way. No attorney general says affirmatively that he is of opinion that the dominion parliament has power to pass a comprehensive bill of rights applicable

to all of Canada; certain attorneys general express a negative opinion and deny that power, and several show very little or no interest in the matter.
He goes on and says that the general course and tone of the correspondence with the deans of the law schools makes it clear that if the dominion government does undertake to set limits to the activities of the provinces in dealing with civil rights of this kind it is altogether probable that a considerable provincial rights controversy will be precipitated. He goes on further to say that this is borne out by the replies received from certain deans of law schools and he lists the various universities from which replies have been received. Then he says;
I shall not undertake to summarize the opinions of these deans because they are contained in an exhibit before the committee, but generally speaking they are most unfavourable to an affirmative answer to the question as to whether this parliament has that power.
He goes on to say that it will be the duty of that committee to determine what is right and what is wrong in connection with this question. I believe that this is a fairly clear indication that since 1946 there has been a tremendous amount of work done in this whole field of human rights and fundamental freedoms. The method taken in presenting this bill is the only method which could be taken with any hope of immediate success. We are dealing in this bill only with those matters which are within the jurisdiction of this parliament. There is no possibility of any controversy in regard to provincial rights. It may well be that after this bill becomes law; at some future time there may be agreement with the provinces. At that time the proper changes can be made in the British North America Act.
What has been of concern in the drafting of this bill has been the fact that our fundamental freedoms are not protected by anything; they are not protected by any act of parliament or any other single thing. For instance, on March 24, 1952, the present Prime Minister, when he moved his motion to ensure fundamental freedoms, as recorded on page 714 of Hansard, quoted from Lord Reading when he introduced a measure in the British House of Lords in 1947. I think this is applicable because the history of this country has shown that what Lord Reading was talking about then has happened here. This is what Lord Reading said:
Personal freedom had for so long been the current coin of life in this country that we had been apt perhaps to forget that currency may be slowly and steathily withdrawn from circulation, that coinage may be debased without any very evident outward signs, and that it may even be deliberately counterfeited without immediate detection.
It is no part of my case today to allege any malign conspiracy on the part of anyone deliberately
Human Rights
to attempt to overthrow the liberties of the subject. The process has been gradual, stealthy, haphazard, almost inadvertent,-
I should like to emphasize that word "inadvertent" because these things do not happen as a result of some deep, secret plan to take away our freedoms. They usually happen in the name of efficiency, in the name of good government, in the name of progress or in the name of getting the job done. I continue to quote what Lord Reading said.
-but unfortunately both insidious and menacing in its cumulative effect.
On the same page there is a quotation from Viscount Samuel's statement in 1951, which is as follows:
During the last 30 or 40 years, imperceptibly, almost unconsciously, here a little and there a little, there have been encroachments upon that great and precious heritage.
I do not suggest today that we have lost, or are in danger of losing, those liberties, but I do suggest that they have been again and again impaired, that that process is still continuing, and that it needs to be stopped and reversed.
Even now, after the peace, or semi-peace, of the last five years, not all these liberties have been restored, and there is danger that some of these restrictions may be allowed unnecessarily to slip into our permanent system of government.
As the Prime Minister said in speaking to his own motion:
The declaration of human rights is predicated upon a realization by the statesmen of the world that there can be no peace unless there is freedom, and there wherever discrimination exists because of race or colour anywhere in the world there is soil that is productive of potential future wars.
Mr. Speaker, it has also been said that this love of freedom is not the prerogative of this particular party, that it is in all parties and on all sides of this house. In all sincerity I say to the opposition that this step is the best one we can take at this time. I say that this step is a good step. Members of the opposition, who were ministers of previous governments have said that this is a good thing and have agreed with the principle of what we are trying to do here. But, somehow or other, whether there was not present the drive, the force or the conviction, they did not carry through. In fact,
time after time, as recorded in Hansard,____and
I have gone back through Hansard back to 1946 and beyond-actions of government taken in the past in good faith have resulted in loss of freedom.
This is a good bill, Mr. Speaker. This is a bill that has been 14 years in coming to fruition. This is a bill in response to a petition signed by 600,000 Canadians saying that they wanted a bill of rights. This is a bill of rights asked for by 86 of 89 Canadian English speaking newspapers. This is a bill that is not perfect. What bill is perfect? You may

Human Rights
quibble with this word or with that word, but you cannot quibble with the underlying philosophy behind the bill. The Leader of the Opposition said that he agreed in principle with this bill. All things considered, and taking into account all that has happened previously, all of the various problems that we face in this country as a confederation,-our problem of the two races, the problem of provincial rights and the problems that we in the federal sphere are obliged to face-I say that this is the best, in my opinion, that we can have at this present moment.
(Translation):


Mr. Maurice Allard (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak at this time, I am deeply convinced of expressing one of the oldest feelings of mankind: a man's privilege of standing for his rights and freedoms. Ever since his emergence from the cave, man has had to wrestle against the forces of nature, and indeed the egotism of his fellowmen, to develop his personality and assert his right to life and freedom of action.
In these few remarks, I intend to trace back the struggles undergone by man to break away from the ties of slavery and despotism. I would like briefly to cover the rights won under British charters, through the American revolution of 1776, the French revolution of 1789, the Russian revolution of 1917 and the action taken by the United Nations under a universal bill of rights since 1945.
I will then recall the unceasing efforts of the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) to incorporate a bill of rights into pur legislative system.
Finally, after an indication of the real basis of our rights and freedoms, I should like to delve into the Canadian constitution aspect of the matter.
When you look at the whole picture of human rights and freedoms, you notice that essential changes in political institutions originated in England. From the eleventh century, in the face of growing intransigency on the part of royalty, the barons succeeded in diminishing royal authority by obtaining the grant of substantial privileges. The discussions and agreements between kings and barons are known as charters. And those English charters were the first written documents in the lengthy process of establishing human freedoms.
First of all, we know the charter of William the Conqueror, which was enacted in 1071 for the preservation of Saxon rights and customs.
Later on, there was the charter of Henry 1 conceding to Londoners the right to elect

their sheriff, their lord justice, to hold assemblies, and exempting them from certain extraordinary taxes.
The two charters of Steven confirmed the freedoms granted by his predecessors and reformed certain abuse of authority and exactions by royal officers.
Both of Steven's charters enabled the barons to build castles and fortify them for their own defence.
In 1154, Henry II, on the occasion of his coronation, confirmed all charters granted before his reign, without however giving any guarantee in this respect. But, as several hon. members who spoke before today recalled, it was on June 19, 1215, that John Lackland and the assembled barons signed the Magna Carta. That document is the basis of English freedoms. However, we must note that it was not yet the people, but the barons, who proved themselves the wardens of public freedoms.
In its provisions, the Magna Carta of 1215 authorized the English barons to free themselves gradually from royal interference and autocracy. Later on, the petition of rights of 1627, the Bill of Rights of 1688, and the establishment act of 1701 continued aiming at a restriction of royal power, protection of individuals against the arbitrariness of the crown and recognition of an omnipotent parliament.
We must therefore conclude that the English charters are, in the last instance, not a triumph of men's natural right to freedom, but rather a pact between two conflicting forces, royalty on the one hand and, on the other, sometimes the barons, as in the case of John Lackland's Magna Carta and sometimes parliament, as in the petition of rights, the Bill of Rights and the establishment act.
The true system of the Bill of Rights was only established by the American declaration of rights of Virginia, in 1776, and by the French declaration of human rights and citizen's rights, in 1789. In the United States, as in France, violent revolutions shook off the yoke of past domination and placed the individual on a true basis of emancipation for the conquest of freedom.
As a matter of fact, we may conclude, from that brief review, that the doctrine in this matter originated in England, later to emigrate to the United States whence it returned to influence the French revolution. In the course of that peregrination, law and freedom, which first had a feudal character, gradually became an individual prerogative based on human nature.
But, when we go on to the Russian revolution of 1917, we discover that this right

was subjected to another transformation. Elsewhere it had had a feudal and individual aspect; in Russia it takes on a socialistic turn. Individual freedoms, the freedom of the press, of assembly, of speech, etc., are then considered not as freedoms but as an obligation for the state to provide citizens with official papers and books, entertainment, public meetings, etc.
Those are the principles that come to light in the bill of rights of the Russian people enacted November 15, 1917, and in the new constitution of human rights passed on December 5, 1936.
Thus, it must be noted that the Soviet conception of freedom is entirely different from that of the western democracy. The Soviet freedoms are not looked upon as a right of the individual but as a task for the state, where the individual remains irrevocably subordinate to the state.
After the first world war, several European countries, such as Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Rumania, Estonia and the free city of Danzig incorporated in their legislation a mixture of various aspects of the human rights now under consideration. They did not confine themselves to recognize the legal independence of the individual, but they set themselves to create a minimum of conditions necessary for his social independence. The same rights that were defined as individual stood out then as steeped in a spirit of social responsibility.
It is in this atmosphere of transformation, tempered with rights and liberties, when the league of nations had failed in the pursuit of its ideal, that the second world war broke out. After this second consecutive war, countries were further impelled to define specifically the fundamental freedoms and rights.
The former president of the United States, Mr. F. Delano Roosevelt, made a masterful speech in January 1941. That historic speech called for the realization, the recognition of the "Four Great Freedoms" for all peoples of the earth. Those four freedoms are:
(1)	Freedom of speech,
(2)	Freedom of worship,
(3)	Freedom from want,
(4)	Freedom to work for one's security.
Those freedoms claimed by Mr. Roosevelt were also proclaimed in the House of Commons by the prime minister on March 7, 1947, on April 12, 1948, on April 15, 1948, on October 28, 1949, on March 24, 1952, and on February 7, 1955.
Mr. Roosevelt's wishes gave rise later on to the United Nations Charter signed in San Francisco, on June 26, 1945.
79951-0-360
Human Rights
The day the United Nations charter was signed by 50 nations, on June 26, 1945, mankind entered into a new phase. International protection was no longer a dream and the future, for all peoples of the earth, was turning towards new destinies.
The United Nations now look after the protection and respect of our rights and of our fundamental freedoms.
Canadians now wish to achieve the realization of the principles of the United Nations charter, which specified the fundamental rights belonging to each man, in the social and legal field.
That great doctrine of human freedom was clearly set out by Pius XI in his encyclical entitled Divini Redemptoris.
Human beings must rank first among earthly realities.
And Pius XII went still further, in a letter written to the president of the social weeks of France, on July 14, 1946:
In the last analysis, everything must tend and converge toward the liberation of human beings. It is those creatures that God placed on top of the visible universe, making of them, both in economics and in politics, the measure of all things.
On April 14, 1945, that is, a month before the signature of the United Nations charter, the executive committee of the Canadian Episcopate stated:
Always, throughout history, the things that have compromised world peace have been the unfair treatment of minorities, the denial of civil and religious liberties, and other denials of man's innate right.
In 1946, 18 member states of the United Nations set up a commission called upon to prepare recommendations towards the development .of a charter of human rights. That commission was composed of a theologian, a jurist, sociologists and moralists. Its work was to be divided in three parts:
(1)	To draft a statement establishing the limits of human rights;
(2)	To prepare a pact, to be signed by the various states, giving legal effect to such rights;
(3)	To prepare means of enforcing and guaranteeing such rights.
In February 1947, the commission held its first meeting in Lake Success and, under the chairmanship of Mrs. Roosevelt, submitted a report of its recommendations. The first to promote the principles of that commission before the United Nations were Brazil, Lebanon and the Netherlands. And the representatives of those countries concluded:
The responsibility of the state is to regulate human rights in the social exercise.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak on this bill at this time. It is not my intention to rehash the arguments

Human Rights
that have been so ably put forward by hon. members who preceded me. However, having heard some of the things hon. members have said I feel compelled to say something in at least partial reply.
I was most interested in what the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) had to say and as a lawyer I was pleased to see that he had reached deeply into the writings of members of the profession and drawn at least some of his inspiration from contributions to the Canadian Bar Review. However, bearing in mind that these contributions appeared in the March, 1959 issue of that publication it is instructive to read the proceedings of the annual meeting of the Canadian Bar Association held in Vancouver in September of last year. I would direct the attention of hon. members to the publication of those proceedings wherein starting at page 85 there appears the report of the civil liberties section. Frankly one would expect that among lawyers there would be some crystallization of the opinion on the question of the bill of rights.
I recall attending the annual meeting of the Canadian Bar Association held in Toronto in September of 1958 shortly after the first draft of the bill had been presented to this honourable house for consideration by the representatives of the Canadian people. Perhaps it was because the election of 1958 was so recent, but unfortunately it seemed to me that at that time a certain element of partisanship was injected into the consideration given this bill. Members of the association present at the time did not approach this matter objectively. It was finally concluded that members of the association could go back home and study the bill. We observed with what result. Having let their partisan feelings die down and become more dormant they considered the question more dispassionately and we have the articles that resulted including those, for example, that appeared in the March, 1959 issue of the Canadian Bar Review.
I was amused while doing some research for material for use in these few minutes at my disposal to find traces of book mice in copies of the proceedings of the 1958 convention. I do not know what the habit is that leads people to draw lines down the side of the pages of library books. Strangely enough the book mouse whose traces I discovered must not have been of our persuasion because every passage which aroused the interest of the book mouse were of those who disagreed with the viewpoint expressed by the author of the bill.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: It must have been the hon. member for Restigouehe-Madawaska (Mr. Van Horne).


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I do not think I would undertake to embarrass the hon. gentleman by indicating the identity of the person I think was the imitator of mice and who left his tracks behind.
Let us look at the resolution put forward by the civil liberties section of the Canadian Bar Association, which reads:
Whereas It is apparent that there is a wide divergence of opinions of the members of the section on the subject of a bill of rights.
And whereas it is imperative that the views of the association should be presented to the joint committee of the houses of parliament appointed to consider a bill of rights.
And whereas it would appear desirable that the views so presented should be those of the association as a whole and not only those of a section thereof.
Be it resolved, therefore, that this section on civil liberties recommends to the council and executive that appropriate steps be taken to ensure that the views of the association-*
An amendment is inserted-
"And to include those articles appearing in the March, 1959 issue of the Canadian Bar Review" be presented to the joint committee as the opportunity may arise.
Those were the conclusions of the Canadian Bar Association. I recognize that inevitably there will be honest differences of opinion on a question of such vital importance as that of our civil rights. This question goes to the very root of our being and so we cannot help but differ in opinion to at least some degree.
I believe that the Leader of the Opposition indicated that he was in sympathy with the end purpose of the bill but that he had some differences with respect to the means whereby that end would be achieved. It will always be thus, but no better means within the limitations of our Canadian constitution has yet been suggested.
Again referring to the proceedings of the annual meeting of the Canadian Bar Association, at page 92 of the report there is an indication of the viewpoint of the legal profession of Canada with respect to the bill of rights:
Now, in civil liberties, the views that are expressed in this association with regard to a bill of rights roughly categorize themselves into four basic views. Those who contend that we shouldn't tamper with it at all, that no legislation is necessary and we will leave it to the developing jurisprudence. Those that like the former bill. Those who say, "Well, a statute is fine but it should be amended." And those (who)-insist or contend for a basic amendment to the British North America Act.
For those who contend that we should not tamper with the present situation at all but should look with confidence to Great Britain where the civil rights we possess had their origin I suggest we should examine their situation to see whether or not there is need

lor a bill of rights. If hon. members want some very instructive reading I commend to their attention a book entitled "Laws and Orders" by Sir Carleton Allen which followed the book entitled "The New Despotism" by Lord Hewart. There hon. members will see just what can take place under an unwritten constitution. Those hon. members who were in Great Britain during the war will remember regulation No. 18 (b). Those who are lawyers with an academic bent will also recall the famous case of Liversidge v. Anderson.
Regulation 18(b) gave the secretary of state the power to detain any particular person- and I paraphrase-if satisfied that it was necessary to do so. True enough, this was under conditions of war and terrible war, and conditions may be somewhat different. But I think everyone will agree with me, as I agree with the author of this learned text, that regulation 18(b) disappeared none too soon from the statute books of Great Britain. There were other regulations made under their food control-and here it is elementary -any law or any regulation made under any statute should be published and should come to the knowledge of the people who are governed by such laws. And yet food regulations were passed in Great Britain during the war which had written into them, notwithstanding the fact that this regulation was not even published, "it shall be operative, and there will be an offence committed under these regulations by any breach thereof notwithstanding any nonpublication." I know of cases where people were actually convicted who did not even know, had no possible chance of knowing, that such a regulation existed. These are the things that we must guard against. Again, gentlemen, may I commend to you a reading of this text. It will show you what can happen.
No one here will deny that there have been excesses. After all to err is human and we are human; but because we have erred in the past-and I say this without any sense of partisanship-because there have been errors committed in the past and errors could be committed today and errors will be committed tomorrow, is that any argument for not putting on our statute books, in so far as we are empowered in the federal jurisdiction to do so, a statute which will relieve as much as we can against such a form of tyranny? We cannot say that this is perfect; otherwise, long before now this world would be perfect. This group, this nation, has not a sudden monopoly of superintelligence.
However, in commenting further, the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) this afternoon stated that this bill will not create
Human Rights
anything-and I am paraphrasing my notes of what he said-people will not realize that this is anything important; that it will not affect their daily lives. What does he want, something that sticks out like the Income Tax Act or the Criminal Code? People are not so conscious of habeas corpus or writs of mandamus, and yet they do know they exist, that they protect. If you asked the average man, what about habeas corpus, I think he would scratch his head and say, what is it? But yet it does exist. The hon. member further said that this should be something more than just a fizzling squib. I suggest to you that this is a beacon; this is something toward which we are pointing.
Human rights and civil rights are not something that you can cram down people's throats. I do not know-the hon. member did not suggest what he had in mind or how he could go about it-whether he wanted something dressed up in fancy language that sounded sonorous. This is a bill in simple language, and those elemental rights which we possess are simple rights.
There are those who complain that this bill has no sanctions; how can it function? But enforceability of a bill does not require a sanction. Surely its enforceability lies in the restoration of an aggrieved right and if subsequently there may lie an action in law. That is something further upon which I do not wish to speculate.
There are others who would object that this is poor timing. Why? Because they say we will not have time to consider it. Most of the arguments that have been put forward on behalf of the opposition against this bill have come forward from the criticisms which appeared in March of 1959, and those self-same gentlemen would be invited to come forward again. Those are not short essays that have been written by those learned gentlemen, but learned discourses. If anyone wishes to go into greater detail to find out what is meant, let him read.
Is there anything to be gained by the reading of those complete essays, by the detailed examination of those self-same authors? Yes, they may be brought forward to explain in part or to elucidate on some particular aspects; but do they have to present the whole case all over again? All it means is that somebody has to go and do a little homework.
There is one final point that I should like to make. This does not exist to such a great extent or it may not exist to such a great extent in the federal jurisdiction, but there has been a tendency in the United Kingdom and here for legislation to be drafted, considered and passed under which authority is

Human Rights
delegated by parliament to boards and commissions which fulfil quasi-judicial functions and from whose rulings there is no appeal. While there may be some argument for finality in some of these matters, it is my firm conviction that that is one feature of our administration as government, be it at any level, which must be curbed rather than extended.
I hope that this bill may serve the purpose of restoring to an individual those rights which may have been removed from him by the decision of a board, commission or official, from whom it is stated that there shall be no appeal. How else can rights be restored if transgressed?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Will my hon. friend permit a question?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Yes.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have been following him with interest, but can he tell us how this bill will deal with rights that may in any way have been affected by decisions of administrative tribunals? What right of appeal will be given against such decisions under this bill?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: It would be my view, that under this bill if any of those rights which are enumerated in the bill, if any of those processes which have been enumerated in the bill have been transgressed the provisions of this bill could be invoked to provide an appeal against the ruling; that is my hope. I should like to hear the views of my learned friend from Essex East (Mr. Martin) on this subject.


Lionel Chevrier: Where in the bill does that appear, if I may ask?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: There is no definite statement, but I would say that a careful reading of section 3, combined with section 2, in the appropriate cases-I will not say in all cases -will show that this bill may be invoked to relieve against any transgressions of the rights therein enumerated.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, let me say that we have been talking a lot about rights. I would say that we must never forget that for every right there is a concomitant duty; wherever there is a right of the individual as against his fellow citizen there is a corresponding duty; wherever there is a right of the individual against the state there is a corresponding duty; wherever there is a right of the state against the individual there is a corresponding duty. As long as we do not forget that, then we will see to the fulfilment of the preservation of the spirit of civil rights.
In termination, may I quote a citation which appears on the title page of this book, "Law

and Orders", which I think is appropriate to our consideration this evening:
Amongst many other points of happiness and freedom, which Your Majesty's subjects of this kingdom have enjoyed under your royal progenitors ... there is none which they have accounted more dear and precious than this, to be guided and governed by certain rule of law... Out of this root hath grown the indubitable right of the people of this kingdom not to be made subject to any punishment that shall extend to their lives, lands, bodies or goods, other than such as are ordained by the common laws of this land or the stautes made by their common consent in parliament.
Petition of the House of Commons, July 7, 1610.


Murdo William Martin: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I should like to compliment the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) and this government for again taking the lead in following the example of the province of Saskatchewan. I am afraid that this bill in its present form would be no more effective, so far as Canadian citizens are concerned in the various provinces throughout the country, than if when this government followed the lead of the Saskatchewan government in connection with hospital insurance no other province had joined in the plan.
Today we have seen member after member on the government side of the house get up and almost slavishly express his confidence in the Prime Minister. I must confess that prior to the election of 1957 I possibly shared that confidence, perhaps not to the same extent as other hon. members, in the Prime Minister. However, I must say that since that time my faith, if not theirs, has been shattered. It has been shattered for a number of reasons. One of the first reasons that comes to my mind is the year of inaction followed by no action when the rights of Canadian citizens in Newfoundland were affected. Then in spite of all the glowing speeches we heard when the Prime Minister was a member of the opposition, we see four sessions of parliament go by under this government and then in the dying days of the fourth session, amid the rush of extended hours, we finally have this bill before us for discussion. In fact, I believe this is the first time I have had the privilege of speaking in this house after ten o'clock at night.
Then more recently we have seen a violation of human rights that has shaken the world. I will admit that the Prime Minister has told us South Africa knows his opinion. I am sure that most Canadians do not, and certainly those with whom I talked are not sure what the Prime Minister's opinion is of this violation of civil rights that we have seen recently carried out so brutally in South Africa. Furthermore we still see cases in which the very livelihood of civil servants hangs

upon the words of hon. members here, without any trial or any recourse. In fact, we see that civil servants are even being denied overtime pay for the extended hours they work while we are sitting here discussing this bill of rights. In addition, they are denied the right to bargain for that, which privilege other citizens of this country enjoy.
But, both the Prime Minister and the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) admitted past mistakes. I think the words of the Prime Minister were to the effect that whatever the mistakes of the past, here is a step by which we are going on to the future. When this bill was introduced last Friday it seemed to me that the stage was set just a little too pat. It was introduced on the anniversary of Canada's birthday; all the faithful were here in greater number than normal on a Friday and the galleries were filled. I am wondering, if that was not what prompted some person to send this post card which I received this morning. The message reads:
Exercise your jaws on this for a while.
It contains a cutout of the Globe and Mail a little advertisement which reads as follows:
To flee Chauvinism non-citizen needs job and pay.
Mr. Speaker, I agree with hon. members who have spoken so far and who say that this is the first step. I was also pleased to hear the Prime Minister state so clearly that this government is willing to meet half way with any province which desires to extend this bill of rights to their provinces. I hope the example we saw two years ago with regard to hospital insurance catches on just as rapidly with regard to a bill of rights and that the provinces fall in line once the lead is taken by the federal government.
I recall the hon. member for Brome-Missis-quoi (Mr. Grafftey) saying before lunch that he greatly feared a C.C.F. bill of rights. For the benefit of the hon. member, if he is not aware of it, may I say this. At the present time we have in our provinces four Tory governments, three Liberal governments, two Social Credit governments and only one C.C.F. government; but that one C.C.F. government is the only one which for years has had on the statute books a bill of rights.


Murdo William Martin: Alberta has one.


Murdo William Martin: I noticed that neither the hon. member nor any others on the government side have stated just in what respect they disagree with the bill of rights that is on the statute books of the province of Saskatchewan. Several of the government members stated that new Canadians
Human Rights
are calling for a bill of rights. Not only are new Canadians calling for a bill of rights; old Canadians are calling for a bill of rights and they have been doing so for years.
I wonder whether we might not sell them a false bill of goods by just passing this bill of rights in its present form. Maybe they will think that because the federal government has passed a bill of rights their rights are protected wherever they may live in this country. Unfortunately they may find that is not so.
I note that on Friday the Prime Minister said that it is impossible at the present time to get an amendment to the constitution or to get the consent of all the provinces. I also notice that many of the government members have, like parrots, repeated that statement today. However, I have yet to see any evidence, let alone any proof, that this is so.
I should like to know which provinces object to passing a bill of rights. Certainly the province of Saskatchewan does not object because it has one on its statute books right now. Surely all the other three parties represented in provincial governments across the country believe just as much in human rights and fundamental freedoms as do the C.C.F. I maintain that we have no evidence, whatsoever, that it is impossible today to get the provinces to agree to an amendment to the constitution which would incorporate a bill of rights that would be applicable to all Canadians regardless of where they live in this country. Why should we at this time pass what in effect will be not much more than an empty shell?
I notice that just in this session the Prime Minister and the government were able to get the ten provinces to agree to an amendment to the constitution with regard to judges' retirement. Surely if they will agree to that amendment they will also agree to something as basic as the fundamental freedoms and rights of the citizens of this country. If we fail at this time to pass an amendment to the British North America Act that will make this applicable to all Canadian citizens regardless of where they may live I would say that we will find ourselves in a position where we will have a bill of rights but it will not mean anything outside of possibly the province of Saskatchewan; however, we will have a bill of rights.


Mr. R. S. MacLellan (Inverness-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I am extremely pleased to have the opportunity this evening to join hon. members, from all sides of the house in general support of this bill. I firmly believe that when most of the other things we have discussed and most of the other bills we

Human Rights
have passed this year will have been forgotten this bill of rights will be the memento that will make 1960 a memorable year in the history of Canada. In the concept of this bill and in its idealism we have the foremost expression of our Canadianism that we will show to the whole world.
The timing of the bill was excellent. Year after year across countless generations to come students in school will open up their history books to read that it was on July 1, I960, our Dominion day, that into the parliament of Canada was introduced one of the most important pieces of legislation ever to come before this House of Commons. And the timing is excellent in the session. Most minor things are almost through, and we now have the time, if we want to take it, in which to deal thoroughly with this vital bill. I hope every member of the house will take advantage of his opportunity to speak during the debate on this bill of rights.
It seems to me that we spend too little time in remembering how this nation was bom and of what we stand for. It was only a few years ago that this nation was settled. Why? It was settled chiefly for freedom; and no other reason can compare to that one. People from other countries came here to find freedom of worship, freedom of thought and freedom of speech. It was the people of freedom who founded this nation. No matter what we accomplish in terms of material things; no matter what riches we accumulate; no matter the power we may achieve in this world, we should always remember that our strength and our Canadianism comes from the fact that we are a free people; that we respect each other's rights and that out of freedom we have built the nation we have today.
It is a pity that this bill was not passed years ago. What a wonderful thing it would have been if the fathers of confederation could have incorporated it in the British North America Act. What a wonderful thing it would have been if it had been a part of our history all of these years, in a way in which every school child could see it and could understand it. I think part of the reason why the great immigration came to the United States of America in the first half of this century and the last half of the last century was the fact that the United States of America made clear that above all else it represented the land of the free; that there was a country to which a man could come from any part of the earth and find freedom to do as he liked within the law, and to find equality of opportunity among his fellows. That is what we missed in the first 90 years of our life; we should have spelled

out for everyone across this world to hear that we stood for freedom first, and that everything else was really secondary to that consideration.
This bill is in two parts. First of all, it is a declaration of our faith in a free Canada and of what Canada stands for in terms of rights of the individual. It is a declaration that we must show to all the world so that everyone will know how we revere the rights of man.
We talk from time to time in this house about gifts to underdeveloped countries. We discuss how we can assist new nations to develop and find the best mode of living and standards. I think more than anything else the gift that Canada has to give to the world is to be found in the fact that we have built this nation in freedom; and that in freedom is the fundamental concept of our Canadianism and our nation. We should take our declaration wherever the Canadian flag flies; wherever Canadians go they should bring with them that Canada is free; that all who live here are free; that we are bound in trust to cling to this before all else.
The first part of this bill is a declaration of basic human freedoms; it is the declaration of our people of our faith, in freedom and justice. The second part of the bill provides the sanction of our declaration. It has been said that this bill has no sanction. What more positive sanction can there be than that which is spelled out? In the future every act which comes before the courts of Canada is to be tested on this touchstone, that it must not deprive any Canadian citizen of his fundamental human rights. This will be the most important act upon the statute books of Canada. Every magistrate, every judge and every parliamentarian who from now on turns to the law of Canada must look at it through the glass of this bill of rights. Section 3 sets forth for everyone who wants to see that no Canadian may abridge the fundamental human rights of his neighbour, and that above all else in this nation we respect human freedoms and the right of the individual.
Consider the race between the ideologies of the world. The only fight we can really put up to communism and its materialistic philosophy is the fact that we are achieving the same material standards as they, or better, and are still free. We have always stood for the principle that the individual comes before the state and that is the foundation of our national heritage. Communistic nations have spread across the world the idea of economic splendour. They say if you toss the control of your life and your freedom into the pot, great economic reward will

flow from your personal sacrifice to the state. Our only answer to that is that freedom comes before all these things; we must have the right to worship the way we want; the right to say what we want, and the right to support what institutions we like and to turn down those we do not like. These are more important than any economic benefits which can be offered to any man.
Mr. Speaker, our pioneers, our first settlers came to this nation to prove just that. They left their homes in England or Scotland or Ireland; and the sunny fields of Europe to carve a new nation. They were ready to leave behind everything they had acquired to travel here where they could be free. We must never forget that.
From the point of view of practical operation the work this bill will do is chiefly as a watchdog over parliament. We will adopt this bill to govern ourselves and to provide that neither by hysteria, nor by carelessness nor by any subtle way will we cut down the rights of the Canadian citizen. We must be careful from now on about delegating powers to others. True, in our common law, in the precedents of English courts and of our own some of the basic freedoms set forth here do exist at law. Most of the safeguards set out in the bill exist somewhere in our case law. But here they provide a safeguard which no one can misunderstand, so that any individual who wants to may turn to this bill for sanctuary, and take it to the courts to seek relief.


Paul Joseph James Martin: All the freedoms are not here.


Robert Simpson MacLellan: All the basic ones are.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The political ones.


Robert Simpson MacLellan: The most important political freedom, and the only one which really counts, is freedom of speech, and that is here.


Paul Joseph James Martin: All the political ones are there.


Robert Simpson MacLellan: All the fundamental freedoms are here, where they ought to be.


Paul Joseph James Martin: But not the economic ones.


Robert Simpson MacLellan: We are not dealing with economic freedoms. This is a bill which codifies the rights of man we have been so proud of.
Without quibbling or question we will now have these rights as individuals, as Canadian citizens, and any man can go before the
Business of the House
courts with a sword to claim his rights. It will strengthen the hand of every judge, and of every lawyer who pleads the cause of the oppressed or of the man shut out from his rights as a Canadian. It strengthens the arm of freedom before the courts of this land.
Our founding fathers established here a special concept of government. It was based on the philosophy that the less government we have the better. The only purpose of government is to guarantee individual freedoms. The chief purpose we pass laws in this course is to protect each other's rights. There is no such thing as absolute freedom; everyone must sacrifice something to the common cause. We cannot all run loose around the nation, we must have law. And the laws we pass every day restrict individual freedoms to a certain extent. But the chief reason why we are here is to protect our human rights and our Canadian concept that the individual comes before the state.
Any democracy must live by rule of the majority. But majority rule is only a way of deciding issues. Majority rule does not make wrong into right. A man can be injured or persecuted by majority rule. This bill is intended to protect the individual and to guarantee he is not trampled on by the majority acting wrongly. The courts have always to some extent provided this defence to Canadian citizens in one way or another; now they have a better chance to do it than ever before.
May I call it eleven o'clock?



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: May I ask whoever is leading the house what we will do tomorrow and Wednesday?


Mr. Brooks:: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we will continue with this debate, second reading of the bill of rights. If we should complete that we shall consider item No. 4, second reading of Bill No. C-82, respecting the department of forestry.
On Wednesday, Thursday and Friday we will take estimates as set out by the leader of the house the other day.


Lionel Chevrier: Has the order been decided?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: The same order as set out on June 30. First we will complete the Department of Justice. Then we will take the
R.C.M.P., national revenue, transport, external affairs, northern affairs, labour and public works.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to special order.
79951-0-361
[Stage Direction]
Question

[Stage Direction]
The following answer, deposited with the Clerk of the house, is printed in the official report of debates pursuant to standing order 39:

Mr. Howard: 1.	For each year since January 1, 1956, has any revenue money of the Kitimat Indian band been spent without the consent of the council of that band?
2.	If so, upon what dates and for what purposes was each expenditure so made?
Answer by: Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):
1.	1956, No; 1957, Yes; 1958, Yes; 1959, Yes; 1960, Yes.
2.	The band revenue funds were expended during the following months for relief to band members under authority of section 66(2) of the Indian Act: 1957, May, September, October, November and December; 1958, January, February and March; 1959, April, May, June, July, August, September, October; 1960, February.

Tuesday, July 5, 1960