1960-08-02

Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I have to announce the appointment of a royal commission to inquire into and report upon the situation of, and the prospects for, the industries in Canada producing motor vehicles and parts thereof. So that the house may understand the ambit and authority of the royal commission, with the permission of the house I might set out the particulars.
The commission will be asked to report upon:
(a)	the present and prospective competitive position of the Canadian automotive industry, in Canadian and export markets, as compared with automotive industries of other countries;
(b)	the relations between the companies producing motor vehicles and parts in Canada and parent, subsidiary or affiliated companies in other countries and the effect of such relations upon production in Canada;
(c)	the special problems and competitive position of the industries in Canada producing parts for motor vehicles, and the effects thereof upon the production of vehicles in Canada;
(d)	the ability of the Canadian industry to produce and distribute economically the various types of motor vehicles demanded or likely to be demanded by the Canadian consumers; and
(e)	measures that could be taken by those in control of the industries producing motor vehicles and parts therefore in Canada, by the labour unions concerned, and by parliament and the government to improve the ability of such industries to provide increased employment in the economic production of vehicles for the Canadian market and export markets.
After consideration it was decided that one commissioner would properly discharge the responsibilities of this office. I am very pleased to be able to report that Vincent W. Bladen, M.A., F.R.S.C., dean of the faculty of arts of the University of Toronto, has undertaken this reponsibility. Dean Bladen, I am sure, is known to hon. members in all
parts of the house as an authority on economics, having been the former head of the department of economics of the University of Toronto and chairman of the institute on industrial relations in that department.
Dean Bladen will start work at once. There will be no delay whatsoever. He will commence this afternoon an examination of the records already available in the departments, and will be in a position to proceed without any delay into a full and complete investigation of the matters set out in the order in council which will be tabled later today.


Hon. Paul Marlin (Essex Easl):: Mr. Speaker, as one member of parliament who represents a constituency where the automobile industry plays such a great part in the economic life of the community, I welcome the action announced by the Prime Minister this morning. I may say to him that in announcing the commissioner, Professor Vincent Bladen, that gentleman has a qualification which I am sure the Prime Minister was not aware of, and I am sure if he had been aware of it he would not think the qualifications were as deserved as he and I both believe they are; and that is that Professor Bladen is an old professor of mine, as he is of the Minister of Finance. That, of course, will ease the blow a little in the Prime Minister's eyes, when he realizes that the Minister of Finance was taught some of his basic economics by Professor Bladen.
I had anticipated that the commission to be appointed by the government to look into the automobile industry would have been composed of more than one commissioner. I had anticipated there would be several commissioners so that various groups in the country would have been represented, including labour, management, the consumer and the state. However, the government has decided to appoint a single commissioner. I cannot speak too highly of his qualifications.
The problem facing the industry, however, as I am sure the Prime Minister will recognize, is of such a nature as not to be resolved merely by this study. I hope the inquiry will be prosecuted with dispatch, so the government will be enabled to reach conclusions which will improve the condition in that industry and increase the opportunity for employment. Meanwhile, however, the government, it seems to me, is not absolved from taking corrective measures
7386	HOUSE OF
Royal Commission on Automobiles at the present time. One, of course, would be the abolition of the excise tax pursuant to promises-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member should not enter into debating ground.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I thought we had agreed on this, Mr. Speaker. I can say to the Prime Minister that the community from which I come in particular received the decision to appoint such a commission with understanding. We sincerely hope that the inquiry will be thorough and that it will be done quickly, because so much depends on it. The people of Windsor, so many thousands of whom are out of work, join me in thanking the Prime Minister for making this announcement today.


Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the Prime Minister has gone forward with the appointment of a commissioner to act as a royal commission to inquire into the automobile industry. This has been an industry of very great importance to Canada, but in recent years there has been evidence of difficulty in it. We think the scope of the inquiry set forth by the Prime Minister is important in so far it goes, but I should like to have had the Prime Minister spell out the terms of reference a little more adequately to make certain that the royal commission would inquire into all problems with regard to automation and into the field of management, and not a onesided inquiry into the labour unions.
I think it is a mistake to load this whole burden on one man. I believe the royal commission would be more effective if there were a number of commissioners, representative of the main economic groups interested in this industry, rather than putting the responsibility for report and decision on one man. I have another reason for advocating this proposition, Mr. Speaker. Although we in the C.C.F. acknowledge the outstanding qualities of Professor Bladen, nevertheless we believe that he is something of a small "c" conservative in his economic outlook. The commission could well have used additional personnel which would give it something of a broader outlook.
This is an important commission. We look forward to an early report. Newspapers have been saying the report will be in by the end of this year. I would ask the Prime Minister, if he cares to comment, whether he feels an inquiry of this scope may be completed by the end of this year so that action where desirable may be taken.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, all I can say is this. We felt that if we had appointed several commissioners the period within which the report would ultimately be made would be somewhat longer than it would take one man to discharge this responsibility. As a matter of fact, on other occasions I have heard criticisms that royal commissions were too large in number, but it has always been so. Whatever you do there will always be criticism.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Remember Dr. Clark's report.

On the orders of the day:


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask
a question supplementary to the royal commission announcement. Is it the intention of the royal commission to make its headquarters in Ottawa or, as I think it should, in the city of Windsor?


John George Diefenbaker: I am sure the hon. gentleman has no personal interest in determining where this commission should make its permanent headquarters. This is an entirely objective observation on his part, and I accept it in that sense. May I say that the determination in that regard, of course, will rest with the commission.



UNITED NATIONS


[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 has anything to say about the reported invitation of the head of the Soviet government for a heads of government conference on disarmament in New York on September 20, and the Prime Minister's statement as reported in the press that this proposal-I should have called it a proposal rather than an invitation -seems to be a propaganda move.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of
State for External Affairs will answer that question.


Hon. Howard C. Green (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that this proposal can be taken seriously. It would obviously be impractical to try to bring together the heads of government of all the members of the United Nations during the general assembly, which is, as I understand it, what the Soviet proposal

amounts to. In effect this is simply another refusal on the part of the Soviet government to resume the disarmament negotiations which they broke off some weeks ago. It appears to be an attempt to undermine the western initiative in calling a meeting of the disarmament commission, which Canada and others have proposed in an effort to bring about a resumption of negotiations. Of course the Soviet authorities would not wish to put themselves in the position of flatly refusing to resume negotiations, and they have therefore, I would suggest, attempted to disguise what is in fact a refusal by putting forward this plainly impractical suggestion.



COLUMBIA RIVER-CANADIAN POSITION RESPECTING DEVELOPMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, as the member for Kootenay West and as a member of the all-party Columbia conservation fraternity, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Justice. My question is based on the report of a speech made by Mr. Deane Finlayson, leader of the Progressive Conservative party in British Columbia, at Revelstoke on July 26, in which he expressed his opposition to excessive flooding in British Columbia and concluded with these words:
It would be a mistake to build high Arrow and thereby eliminate generation of power on the Canadian side.
Can the minister inform the house whether the federal government is in agreement with Mr. Deane Finlayson's approach to this very important question?


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the position of the federal government in this matter will be made known at such time as the three governments concerned make their announcements of what agreement has been reached with respect to the projects to be constructed on the Columbia river. However, in view of what was said in the speech referred to, and the relation of the remarks with regard to high Arrow to the whole program, I should perhaps repeat that this government has made it clear before and wishes to make it clear again that it regards the Mica creek project as the essential core and heart of any scheme of Columbia river development, that our whole efforts are directed toward seeing that construction of the Mica creek project is commenced as soon as possible and that the storage credit position attributed to Mica creek will be the best that can be obtained for it.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Lester Bowles Pearson: I should like to ask a supplementary question. Is there any possibility of agreement with the United States with regard to Columbia river developments before the end of this session?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I think it is safe for me to hazard a guess now in answer to this question, which when I was asked it previously I was not able to answer because there was no indication when the session might end. The Leader of the Opposition will be able to correct me if my assumption is wrong, because the opposition determines the date of the end of the session, but on the assumption that it will be this week I think I can tell the hon. gentleman that I doubt if there will be any agreement before the end of the session. However, I think there is good ground to hope that there will be one shortly afterwards.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister, having in mind the announcement he has just made concerning a royal commission. When does the government propose to appoint the royal commission on the organization of the civil service?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the government does not intend to appoint any commission on the organization of the civil service. The government does intend to appoint a commission analogous in nature to the Hoover commission in the United States. As soon as we are in a position to make an announcement in this regard, it will be made.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
"bluenose"
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. F. Legere (Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare):: Is the Minister of Labour in a position to make a report on the dispute affecting the Bluenose?


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member has been interested in this dispute, as have other members from that area. Following a conciliation board report, the union took a strike vote and the date for the strike was set for Friday, August 5. Upon learning of the

Inquiries of the Ministry impasse we requested the parties in the dispute to meet again and endeavour to iron out their differences. I am happy to report that these differences were reconciled yesterday, and an agreement between the two parties was reached. Consequently there will be no strike.



ELLIOT LAKE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Could I ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce whether there is any possibility of the government committee inquiring into federal assistance to the uranium communities being able to report to the house this week?


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: There is always a possibility of reports being received before the end of the session.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. C. Henderson (Cariboo):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister of northern affairs. In view of the fact that the minister has stated it is most urgent that the railroad to Pine Point be completed as soon as possible, and since the majority of the commissioners inquiring into the route have favoured the western route on which there are no bridges to be constructed, which would enable the project to be completed two years earlier than if the eastern route were followed, will the minister assure the house that he will give immediate attention to implementing the recommendation of the majority of the commissioners?


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: The hon. member was kind enough to give me notice of his question. All I can tell my hon. friend is that this matter is now under very active consideration by the government, and when a decision is made there will be an announcement.



CIVIL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence, and I am sorry I have not had

an opportunity to give him notice of it. Will the minister comment on the report in this morning's Globe and Mail to the effect that the dispatch of signallers to the Congo will have a marked effect on the army's role in survival operations?


Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of National Defence):: I thought the hon. gentleman would be asking such a question, so I jotted down a suggested answer for him. When the Department of National Defence last September took over additional responsibilities in connection with civil defence and survival operations, the need for an extensive communications system for warning and fall-out recording was foreseen. To meet this need, personnel were transferred from other corps to the Royal Canadian Signal Corps and an intensive training program was set up.
I have examined the present position carefully, and am confident that the signals personnel now required by the United Nations force in the Congo can be spared without risking the effectiveness of the civil defence organization.



BRIDGES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Marcel Boivin (Shefford):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Would it be possible, following the accident on Jacques Cartier bridge during the rainstorm, on Saturday, to have the minister ask the director of the harbours board to post signs advising tourists that the roadbed of the bridge may be slippery when it is wet?


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: This sounds like a sensible suggestion, and I shall forward it to the chairman of the national harbours board.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Edmund Davie Fulton: Yesterday the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre asked me a question with regard to the likelihood of arrests in Manitoba as a result of the inquiry into irregularities in regard to Chinese immigration. I am informed that Yuen Bak Yee, alias Buddy Leeds, of Brandon, Manitoba, was arrested on Friday, July 29, 1960, as a result of this inquiry.
Three charges of forgery of immigration documents have been preferred against him, and he was remanded without plea to August

3. In the meantime he has been released on bail of $10,000. There may be other arrests made as a result of the investigation, but it is too early to say at this moment.



REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON DELIVERY AND QUOTA POSITION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Now that we are in a new crop year, would the minister give us a report of the number of marketing points which may have remained on a 6-bushel quota? More particularly can he tell us at how many marketing points there was insufficient space or insufficient box cars to enable farmers to deliver a full 7-bushel quota, and is any further consideration being given to an extension of the delivery period into the current crop year?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's question requires a fair amount of statistical information, but if the minister has it I raise no objection.


Gordon Minto Churchill: There are three questions which the hon. member has put forward. I can answer the first one. The total number of stations remaining on a 6-bushel quota is 45 out of a grand total of 2,007 stations. Five of those are in Saskatchewan and 40 in Alberta, and they are scattered throughout the provinces; they are not in any one area.
The second question I cannot answer. That would involve a great deal of inquiry affecting 1,962 stations which were placed on the 7-bushel quota. As to whether there was enough space to accept all the deliveries there, the crop year would be well advanced before that information would be available.
As to the third question dealing with extension of time for deliveries, I have not had a report from the wheat board on that.


Hazen Robert Argue: On the question of the availability of space, is it not a fact that before any delivery quota is increased, in the opinion of the wheat board there is delivery space for at least a large part of the quota?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Plus the box cars expected to be available at that delivery point.


Hazen Robert Argue: Would the minister ask the wheat board if the information is readily available?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Yes. It is an important question, and I will direct it to the attention of the wheat board. Obviously there is no purpose in raising to a 7-bushel quota if there is no space available.
Inquiries of the Ministry ARTS, LETTERS AND SCIENCES



SUGGESTED RECRUITING OF UNIVERSITY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: I would like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs based on a New York report that Dr. Luc Gillon, president of University Lovonuin, Leopoldville, Belgian Congo, is presently in New York city trying to recruit staff for his university, which was depleted when the Belgians moved out. My question is, is the government giving any consideration to asking Dr. Gillon to come to Canada, where he might recruit French speaking university staff through our Quebec universities?


Howard Charles Green: I have not seen that report, but I will be glad to make inquiries.



NATIONAL GALLERY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisia-Twillin-gate):: I wonder if I could ask the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration whether the hon. lady has added to the knowledge she had yesterday about the possible resignation of the associate director of the national gallery?


Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: No, Mr. Speaker.



RESEARCH


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: I would like to direct a question to the minister of northern affairs. In view of the report in this morning's Montreal Gazette that a research team from the Arctic institute of North America, which has its headquarters in Montreal, is receiving from the United States army part of the funds required for a two-year study on Devon island, would the minister state whether the government is making a contribution at least equal to this United States contribution for research to be carried out in the Canadian Arctic?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I received notice of the hon. member's question just before I came into the house, and I have now had a chance to read the article in the Gazette. This article says that the United States army has made a contribution. I would

Inquiries of the Ministry inform the hon. member that this contribution takes the form of the loan of some Arctic clothing from the United States army.
The support of the Arctic institute comes from many private sources both in the United States and Canada, and we in our department make a grant of $10,000 a year. I would point out to the house that in addition to supporting the Arctic institute, other departments of government make grants to them and other scientific organizations. Recently the national research council made a grant of $58,475 to the expedition headed by Mr. Jacobsen, and as the hon. member knows the government has set up a continental shelf scientific expedition, and this Arctic expedition spends $500,000 per year on Arctic exploration.


Hazen Robert Argue: Can the minister assure the house that all reports made by the Arctic institute are available to the house as well as to the United States government?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Yes. The
United States government is one of the contributors, as is the Canadian government, and these reports are available to anyone.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: May I
direct a question to the Prime Minister and ask him if he can assure us that all the legislation which will be considered from now until the end of the session is on the order paper.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, there will be no
more legislation, but there might be additional supplementary estimates.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Keays (Ues-de-la-Madeleine):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries. As I understand that the armed forces may soon be favoured with the addition of scallops to their menus, would the minister make a request that cod tongues also be included in future menus?


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, I will consider the advisability of suggesting that one of the delightful and delectable foods produced in the hon. member's riding be considered as a treat for the armed forces on occasion.



HUMAN RIGHTS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, August 1, consideration in committee of Bill No. C-79, to provide for the recognition and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms -Mr. Diefenbaker-Mr. Flynn in the chair.
(Translation):
Mr. Deschalelels:: Mr. Chairman, just before we adjourned last night, I was trying to bring out the very restricted scope of this bill of rights, and I gave some illustrations from every day life with regard, for instance, to racial discrimination, freedom of religion, and the refusal to grant the services of an interpreter, in order to establish that in cases such as these, which might come up tomorrow, the bill would be entirely useless and would not provide any protection for the victim in the case.
At eleven o'clock last night I was stating that the bill which was submitted for first reading in this house on June 27 last, did not even mention the word "family". I notice that, among the various amendments inserted by the special committee, the word "family" is now mentioned in the preamble. And if hon. members will refer to the report of proceedings in committee, I hope we will be given credit, not only for urging the addition of a preamble but for calling the government's attention, by means of our various amendments, to the significance of the family in Canadian life.
Unfortunately, those amendments were rejected. Knowing as we do that a preamble is purely explanatory in nature, we may, this time tell the government how surprised and disappointed we are to see that the bill has come back without containing a reaffirmation of family rights, of family security and of the safeguard of the essential role still being played by the family in our society.
The Minister of Justice told us last night that he hoped to give this bill a very practical form so that it might be mounted on walls of homes and schools and in public places. That is fine. But it is not a calendar that we want, but a bill of rights, an efficient legislation and we want that legislation to recognize what the highest values in Canadian life are in this year 1960. Personally, I believe that the rights of the family rank first in this respect.
As a matter of fact, what are we doing here, we members of this house who are so proud of the prestige which is attached to

that title? As legislators, our role consists in nothing less than preparing for those who will come after us an improved pattern of life in which our children's personality will be allowed to develop completely. I also must point out that human rights and fundamental freedoms are not something static, but something which develops along with our society.
When we go over the list of rights and fundamental freedoms incorporated in Bill C-79, we note that most of them are rights that have been enjoyed for centuries. But life has changed in the meantime, and we should like to have a bill of rights that would recognize and state the highest values of this society of ours in this year 1960.
Mr. Chairman, I submit that, if we, in the opposition, had not insisted on the introduction in committee of various amendments relating to family rights, we would have been untrue to our political tradition. And if, at this stage, we were not again urging the introduction of amendments relating to family rights, I submit that we would be heedless of our political mission because, from time immemorial, the Liberal party's legislation has been focused upon recognition of family rights, and for all the social security laws we enjoy today we are indebted to the Liberal governments that came before the present government.
Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a word only about the reference to the name of God in the bill now submitted to us with amendments. There was no such reference in the bill introduced on July 27.
In a preamble which the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) submitted to our consideration in committee, there was reference to "spiritual values". I should like particularly to associate the names of the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin), and of the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Dorion) to those of all other members of the committee who were successful in having the name of God included in the present bill.
Let me quote here a few lines of the remarks made in committee, on Friday, July 29, by the hon. member for Essex East:
(Text):
I agree with the minister fully, as every member of this committee does, that we would not want to put anything in a Canadian bill of rights that would be offensive to any religious denomination in our country; to Christians, to Jews, to Moslems, or to any other religious body which recognizes the existence of God. We are a country made up for the most part of religious-minded people. The majority of our people are Christians, but we have a very important and respectful group of Jewish citizens who subscribe to their faith, and we would not want, I am sure, any of us, to incorporate here anything that would
Human Rights
be offensive to them. But, it would seem to me, and I am open to correction, that in a bill of rights entertained and introduced by a country composed as we are of people who acknowledge the existence of God we should not hesitate to confirm that fact in some way in this preamble. In the preamble which I put forward reference to God is made twice-in the beginning and in the final paragraph.
An examination of other charters of human freedom, particularly the peoples charter, discloses that reference is made to God.
One of the basic differences between our free society and communism, the Soviet union totalitarian countries based upon dialectical materialism, is that religion itself and the existence of God are denied. For them. God does not exist and religion is regarded by this group as an opiate to hold down the progress of human beings. We make much of this fact in our ideological ideas. I believe we ought seriously to give recognition to this fact in this preamble.
(Translation):
Now, Mr. Chairman, I move on to another angle. It is about the criticism I raised during the discussion on second reading with regard to the desirability of having a bill of rights on a national scale. It is inconceivable that the provinces were not consulted. As a matter of fact, I am astounded when I read the few following words taken from the speech made by the Prime Minister on July 1, 1960, and found on page 5648 of Hansard:
(Text):
They say if you want to make this effective it has to cover the provinces, too. Anyone advocating that must realize the fact that there is no chance of securing the consent of all the provinces.
(Translation):
Mr. Chairman, at the recent federal-provincial conference, the premier of Quebec said, at the end of a statement, that the province of Quebec was prepared to sit at a conference table and discuss an amendment to the constitution and also to consider a national bill of rights.
I wonder in what category the remarks made on July 1 by the Prime Minister of Canada would fall. Would they be classified as errors or as faults? I would be inclined to say they were faults, and I would even go so far as to say that, if you compare the statement of the Prime Minister of Canada on July 1 and that of the premier of Quebec, you realize that the statement of the Prime Minister of the country was tantamount to an expression of non-confidence in the provinces.


Mr. Lafreniere:: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member allow me a question?
The hon. member has been quoting part of the Prime Minister's speech. However, has he read this sentence from that same speech of the Prime Minister's:
As far as constitutional amendment is concerned, it is impossible of attainment at this time.

Human Rights
Whereupon the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) interjected:
Why?
And the Prime Minister replied:
Simply because of the fact that the consent of the provinces to any interference with property and civil rights cannot be secured. That is no criticism of any province.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Chairman-


Robert B. Lafrenière: I therefore ask the hon. member whether he has read that part of the speech.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: -I do hope you will deduct from my speaking time the time just taken up by the hon. member in making a speech.
Whatever the remarks of the Prime Minister's, the fact remains that, in introducing this bill of rights in such a solemn way on July 1, Dominion day, he did state that there was no chance of securing the consent of the provinces in favour of a national bill. Furthermore, he made that statement at a time when no province had been consulted.
Mr. Chairman, I now want to say a few words in connection with the criticism I made during the discussion on the second reading of the bill, respecting the War Measures Act.
We agree with all the experts who testified before the committee and with all those who take an interest in the question of human rights and fundamental freedoms that, if ever a bill of rights is necessary, it is when the War Measures Act is in force.
Parliament has before it today a bill of rights, but no good reason has yet been given to us why the bill of rights which we are about to adopt should not apply in wartime as well as in peacetime.
The Prime Minister has told us that this bill is a first step only and that, at another session, the War Measures Act would be amended. I believe that if the matter of this bill of rights, both in peacetime and in wartime, had been submitted to us, such experts as university professors and all those who were heard in the committee could have expressed their views on this matter. These would have been quite important for the purpose of adopting a bill that would provide significant protection to all Canadian citizens, both in peacetime and in wartime.
I also mentioned the fact this bill was submitted to us in the dying days of the session, a fact which made it quite difficult

for us and prevented us from giving it all the consideration we would have wished to give in order to make of it a really efficient measure. Besides, the fact that this measure has been submitted during the last days of the session brought up another problem and, like many members-the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) has expressed that view yesterday-I regret that we did not hear the views of any organization, any group from the province of Quebec.
Mr. Chairman, some will say, no doubt, that the heads of such organizations or associations could have made their views known at the committee meetings. However, I must point out that the committee held its meetings at the end of July, a time when, as everybody knows, university activity has been suspended for weeks, a time when professors are on holidays and when most of the organizations or other associations who could have wished to be heard were not able to do so. I believe that we should once again deplore the fact that we have been placed in a position where the voice of the province of Quebec could not be heard with regard to the consideration of this bill.


Mr. Graffley:: That is not true.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: In concluding, Mr. Chairman, may I point out to the house that, in spite of the amendments which have been made to this bill, this measure has only a declaratory significance, too limited in scope. We will therefore do our utmost to make it as efficient as possible and we will continue the strenuous work that has been done by the committee.
(Text):


Mr. Aiken:: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Yes.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: The hon. member spoke of the rights of the family, a subject in which we are all interested. Could the hon. gentleman explain to the committee what particular rights he had in mind that should be protected and in what manner he would have this field invaded by parliament?
(Translation):


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to answer this question, and to give my hon. friend an example.
In the course of my remarks, I attempted to show that we already have in our legislation social security measures by which, for the last 15 or 20 years, Canadian families have been able to enjoy our present standard of living. I would look favourably upon the passage of a bill of rights that would ensure

to the Canadian family the benefit of all social security legislation passed by a Liberal administration, so that no government could deprive the Canadian family of those social security measures necessary for its full development.


Mr. Dorion:: Mr. Chairman, we have before us a bill of vital importance. In my opinion it solemnly establishes a charter which should be the cornerstone of any true democracy.
In a book entitled "Democracy", Georges Budeau, professor of the faculty of law, in Paris, wrote at the beginning of his book the following:
In theory and in fact, democracy is indissolubly related to the idea of liberty. Its simplest as well as its truest definition, that is government of the people by the people, attains its true meaning only because it excludes any power proceeding from an authority other than the people. Therefore, democracy is first and foremost a system of government which strives to include liberty ini the political relation, that is, in the relation between orders and obedience which are inherent in any politically organized society. Authority doubtless remains to a mixed degree so that, based as it is on the acceptance of those who are subject to it, it nevertheless remains consistent with their liberty.
The relationship between the freedom of man and the authority of the state, the limits within which the governors and the governed may carry out their activities, this is exactly what this bill attempts to define.
This charter is the outcome of views long held by the Prime Minister. It was born of the firm and determined will to provide every Canadian citizen with the means of forming, developing and expressing himself and of playing, in his country's service, the part assigned to him by society.
Such is the basic characteristic of this bill. Therein lies its loftiness and its beauty. That is why the right hon. Prime Minister deserves the highest praise and congratulations for having introduced it in this house.
Mr. Chairman, before submitting this charter to the house for final discussion and adoption, the Prime Minister felt it should first be reviewed by a special committee. Looking at the background of the various members of that committee, one is struck by its variety and scope. Indeed, the 15 Canadians in that committee were of nine or ten different nationalities.
I must recognize, Mr. Chairman, that I have seldom witnessed in that kind of committee such a frank and objective discussion of each and every clause of the bill by such diverse people. It made me realize how people
Human Rights
so different and of such various origins can work in harmony.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Noël Dorion: This, to my mind, is a first and extremely important step towards an objective to which the bill now under review will eventually lead when it is passed.
And why did this happen? Simply because every member of the committee without any exception was conscious of the fact that he was taking part in a momentous event, in a wonderful guarantee for the future, and every one was firmly determined to do all that is humanly possible to provide our country with a charter affording the possibility of evolving true Canadian unity, based on harmony among the various racial groups and good will among the people of various extractions that make up the Canadian nation.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear.


Noël Dorion: There, Mr. Chairman, you have, in my opinion, one of the greatest accomplishments of which Canada can rightly be proud. There you have, once again, the first great advantage of this bill which, in my opinion, has already brought about an achievement of the greatest importance.
And here, I recall what the Prime Minister said, when introducing the bill around July 10, I believe, and I quote from Le Devoir of July 12:
All my life I have been waiting for that day when there would emerge in this country a Cana-dianism proud of its ancestry, which would allow every Canadian openly to express his national pride. We all know that, in the past, distinctions have existed in our minds. I have known here, these last few days, an unforgettable feeling, the feeling that we are building within our nation a Canadianism that is common to all provinces.
And I believe I may add that this feeling, each one of us felt it that day.
Mr. Chairman, yesterday I heard the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) say that in his opinion-which I believe he shares with the member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue)-the bill in its present wording is very different from the original bill introduced in the house by the Prime Minister.
Evidently, if the Prime Minister saw fit to send it to a special committee, it is precisely because he wanted to show the house just how anxious he was to see that that charter was as complete and as perfect as any human document can be.

Human Rights
And that gesture, one of modesty, indicating how solicitous he is to respect the members of this house and their opinions is, to my mind, an additional example which throws into strong relief the Prime Minister's character and shows to what extent he was adverse to making this bill his own personal handiwork but wanted instead to make it the business of all Canadians, so that all of them might rejoice in having such a bill of rights as an expression of their own aspirations.
When comparing those texts-the original and the present one-we obviously note rather marked differences. But to my mind, those differences proceed from an identical substance, the substance already contained in the original bill, and from the originating principle according to which, as we can read in the preamble, clear and practical recognition must be given to the spiritual and moral values which characterize our country, which must always be at the root of our legislation and which are as the distinctive trait which separate us from communism, where God and all spiritual values are subordinate to the most depressing and abject materialism. It can therefore be said, Mr. Chairman, that, on the whole, the Prime Minister's project gives spiritual values a priority over material values. That is its essential feature. The Prime Minister therefore resorted to a committee. The members of that committee gave all the assistance they could. And I want to repeat that it was because of a spirit of harmony, because of a spirit of agreement and good understanding that this bill has become the result of teamwork, the fruit of each and every member's thoughts, without exception. The preamble itself merely sets out in eloquent terms the source from which human rights and freedom flow.
The Leader of the Opposition told us last night that he would have preferred a bill of rights endorsed by all the provinces and taking the form of a constitutional amendment. To show that agreement by all provinces was possible, he recalled words spoken by Mr. Lesage during the recent federal-provincial conference.
When the bill was introduced in 1958 and on various occasions since, the Prime Minister of Canada invariably evinced his concern to confine himself to human rights and freedoms in their relation to the federal state. In this, he was perfectly right. Would it not be inconsistent, Mr. Chairman, and even ineon-
[Mr. Dorion.j
ceivable, that a bill of rights should, by itself, and by the scope of the powers it is supposed to embrace, impinge upon the provincial constitutional rights likewise designed to protect man within the society in which he is called upon to live and develop?
Was that not indeed, and until very recently, the opinion of the Leader of the Opposition, when, in 1948 at the United Nations he referred to the particular circumstances in which we live here in Canada, and clearly stated his wish to respect those particular conditions? And I quote what he said in 1948 during the debate at the United Nations. My quotation is from the magazine Relations for November 1958:
(Text):
I wish to make it clear here, that, in regard to any rights that are defined in this document-
(Translation):
Speaking about the universal bill of rights. (Text):
-the federal government of Canada does not intend to invade other rights which are also important to the people of Canada. By this I mean the rights of the provinces under our federal constitution. We believe that the rights set forth in this declaration are operated and well protected in Canada. We shall continue to develop and maintain these rights, but we shall do so within the framework of our constitution which assigns jurisdiction in regard to a number of important questions to the legislatures of our provinces.
(Translation):
Of course, I am not trying to blame the Leader of the Opposition. I am merely noting that his attitude had varied since the day when Mr. Lesage, last July, that is quite recently, at the federal-provincial conference where the agenda made no reference to the problem, suddenly made a statement to the effect that he was prepared to cooperate in drafting a national bill of rights. At that time, Mr. Chairman, the whole question had been debated in the house and the bill had gone through second reading. It had been submitted to a committee whose task was necessarily restricted by its terms of reference and also by the fact that, prior to second reading, government supporters and members of the official opposition had all voted against amending the constitution after consultation with the provinces.
Such were the circumstances at the time of Mr. Lesage's statement. We could not properly, logically and legally modify our terms of reference or the authorization granted us by parliament, for we would have been going against the will of parliament and against the basic principles of



I960

[Stage Direction]
sound democracy. Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, last January the Quebec legislature had unanimously passed a resolution. I must say that a number of persons were on hand who are now members of the cabinet of Mr. Le-sage. As I say, the legislature had passed a resolution clearly indicating its will, or the will of the province of Quebec as represented by the legislature, not to share in a bill of rights. In that connection, I should like to quote from an article by the Quebec correspondent of La Presse, published on February 18, 1960:
Yesterday the legislative assembly unanimously took position on the bill of rights which Prime Minister Diefenbaker is seeking to put through the Canadian House of Commons.
Carried was a motion proclaiming that the proposed federal legislation should in no way, whether directly or indirectly, encroach upon the recognized exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces, under the British North America Act.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I think we can say without boasting that one of our first concerns, of myself and of all the members of the committee-and I commend them for it -was precisely to scrutinize the bill scrupulously, to make sure it contained nothing that might encroach on provincial rights. That, I may say was as a leitmotiv throughout our discussions. That is precisely why, in the preamble to the bill, it is very definitely and very clearly stated that the legislator, or the federal parliament, has no desire to interfere with the rights, privileges and freedoms which are recognized as belonging to the provinces. I am not criticizing Mr. Lesage for his attitude, though I think it is at variance with the will of the Quebec legislature. I am merely trying to deal with the objections which have been raised at this stage in the proceedings.
And I will add this: there is no sign that the legislature has changed its mind in spite of the premier's opinion because the matter is too serious, too important, too vital for the group that the province of Quebec is responsible for protecting, or for us to agree perfunctorily to some improvised statement, a statement which has not previously been submitted to public bodies, to various associations and still less to the legislature itself.
On that point, may I recall this: in the Canadian Bar Review, there is an article by Mr. Louis-Philippe Pigeon, and I must say, incidentally, that this article had impressed me enough to impel me to seek a meeting with Mr. Pigeon, who is a professor at Laval University, in order to discuss with him the 79951-0-467
Human Rights
various objections he had to this bill of rights. The outcome of that meeting was a letter which I showed to some members of the committee, in which Mr. Pigeon was saying that the wording should be clarified so as to remove any uncertainty, any ambiguity as to the legislator's intent to limit the application of the bill to such human rights as come under the powers and rights of the federal state.
Paul Joseph James Martin: Hear, hear.


Noël Dorion: Mr. Chairman, I must add that Mr. Pigeon-and I say this to correct the impression which my good friend from Maison-neuve-Rosemont (Mr. Deschatelets) might have left-Mr. Pigeon and others in the province of Quebec were invited to attend the committee meetings, but for various reasons they did not show up. I must add at once-[DOT] again to correct another statement made by my excellent friend-that at least three professors from the province of Quebec expressed their views before the committee.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: In French only.


Noël Dorion: Now let me adduce a further argument which, in my opinion necessarily came to our minds when the suggestion was made to adjourn our discussion indefinitely until such time as Mr. Lesage was able to express with clarity and precision-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Noël Dorion: I am not saying this in any disparaging sense and would not like hon. members to construe it so-I merely wish to say, in order to allow Mr. Lesage to tell us exactly to what extent he was prepared to work at the framing of a national bill of rights.
I believe this suggestion was premature because, in the province of Quebec-and I apologize to my colleagues of the other provinces if, for a moment I am considering the problem from this strictly provincial angle- we have a legislative system which is centered on the family, a legislative system in which the expression of civil rights is different from what it is elsewhere. And Heaven knows to what extent the French racial group in Canada has always considered, and still considers, that institution which is particular to it, this institution of civil law, as one of the most vital factors to its safeguard and its survival.
Mr. Chairman, a national bill of human rights in which the whole province would

Human Rights
be interested, a bill that would include the basic rights of the citizen as such and in his relations with his fellow citizens-which is civil law-would be of considerable impact on our civil code, on our particular institutions. Please note that I am against this wish. If unanimity can be logically achieved, I will say: so much the better for Canadian unity. But, unless and until I have been convinced that a national bill of human rights cannot in any way affect, say, the rights of a father with regard to his children, his relations with his children, which relations are now defined in the civil code, the husband and wife relationship, the husband's authority, paternal authority, the order of inheritance; as long as I have not been fully convinced that we can draft a text consonant with those basic institutions which are so dear to us, I say that a national bill of human rights must inspire us with the greatest caution. Therefore I repeat that must be so, as long as I have not been convinced that those basic institutions, which have guaranteed our survival, can be made to agree with the contents of a national bill of human rights.
Besides, Mr. Chairman, a look at history will show that I have just dealt with a prime concern of our group. As early as 1760, the first request made by our defeated leaders was the maintenance and preservation of our civil rights. In 1774, we were given a text whereby our group is assured preservation of its civil rights. In 1841, an attempt was made to unify Upper and Lower Canada by the Union act. What were the results? Exactly the opposite; moreover, it was under the Union act the two main pieces of legislation of the province of Quebec-the civil code and the code of civil procedure-were drafted.
Then, in 1867, when on the one hand the colonies of British extraction or of British allegiance agreed to include in the constitutional act of 1867 a provision which made uniform legislation possible, the province of Quebec demanded that an exception be made on her behalf. Why that exception, if not because the province foresaw a danger of absorption and assimilation. Is it possible through a mere statement made on the occasion of a conference here in Ottawa to agree to the solution of so serious a problem simply because the premier of Quebec-whom I respect-expressed a personal opinion that may have serious consequences? I do not say that a national bill

of human rights would be absolutely unacceptable. My purpose is simply and exclusively to show very clearly how very important it is not to accept such a statement inconsiderately and without giving the premier of Quebec and his colleagues an opportunity fully to realize the importance and implications of such action, so that we might in due course have a truly national bill of human rights, as a result of a genuine agreement entered into as a result of actual work, thinking and a profound certainty of not having interfered in any way with the inalienable rights which the province of Quebec is bound to preserve with such perseverance.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Hear, hear.


Noël Dorion: Mr. Chairman, the point was also made that we should have proceeded through an amendment to the constitution.
Well, sir, at this stage, with very definite opinions forcefully expressed by the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) and the member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue), leader of his group, to the effect that the time has come for Canada to have her own constitutional amending instruments, I think it would have been unthinkable for us to call upon Westminster or London to take a hand in making the wealth of our rights and freedoms accessible, so to speak, to all Canadians.
That, to my mind, is absolutely illogical. In my opinion, the right hon. Prime Minister was right in reminding us that the day we repatriate-some doubt has been expressed and with reason in connection with the word but, for lack of a better one we have to use it-that the day we repatriate our constitution, the day we find some specific way of doing so in such manner that it would not interfere with the fundamental rights of the two main racial groups which constitute this country, then we can think of amending the constitution and giving Canadian citizens a national bill of rights.
Mr. Chairman, I now want to say a word on the subject mentioned by my good friend the member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont (Mr. Deschatelets), that is, family rights. I am prepared to believe that the hon. member raised the point quite honestly and without any ulterior electoral motive.


Mr. Johnson:: Never. Impossible.


Noël Dorion: Mr. Chairman, in this respect, it is rather surprising to note that a present

minister in Mr. Lesage's government, Mr. Lafrance, in a statement made in the Quebec legislature on January 19, 1960, asserted that under the constitution certain fundamental rights came under the exclusive jurisdiction of the provincial legislature, and that in those fundamental rights were precisely included family rights. This is what Mr. Lafrance said:
This house urges the provincial government to take all necessary action to introduce an act establishing the rights and freedoms of individuals and more especially those of the family-
In my opinion, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Lafrance was entirely right.
With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I should like to refer to Mr. Albert Sorel, a great French philosopher. According to Mr. Sorel, private law applies to all citizens from the time of their birth, through adolescence to majority, sanctions their marriage, certifies their death and throughout their life, regulates the right to work, to enter into contracts, to dispose of themselves and of their property.
A complete bill of human rights would necessarily have had the result of affecting the very root of civil rights, and more particularly, all institutions protecting the family.
Nothing comes closer to civil rights than this problem and if the committee did not agree to follow my good friend in this direction, it is exactly because, as I said earlier, we wanted to comply with the views of the legislature itself, with the views of his own friends, since we were warned in January or February not to infringe in any way upon the rights and powers of the province of Quebec nor of any other province in this country.
(Text):


The Deputy Chairman:: I am sorry to advise the hon. member that his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.
(Translation):


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, I think that we should grant the hon. member the privilege of going on with his remarks.
(Text):


Charles Edward Rea: Does the committee give unanimous consent to the hon. member continuing?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
(Translation):


Noël Dorion: Mr. Chairman, I quite appreciate the intervention of the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) and I 79951-0-467J
Human Rights
must say that, not only during the sittings of the committee but ever since I have been a member of this house, he has been so kind, gracious and courteous to me that very often I have felt embarrassed about it. I appreciate his behaviour very highly and I am glad of this occasion of saying so.
Mr. Chairman, in 1959, the Semaines sociales du Canada, an organization whose members meet each year for the study of social or sociological problems, met last year in Quebec city. The theme of their conference, or the main idea of their meeting, was a study of the mission and the rights of the family. In the opening speech, Rev. Father Richard Ares, chairman of the Semaines sociales du Canada, who is particularly known in Quebec sociological circles, stated the following, that I find at page 21 of the report:
In order to be still more practical and precise, I shall add this. I see only advantages in a bill of family rights which would be jointly and freely enforced by both levels of government that form our federal system and would later command the respect of each. Even if the statement were the work of a single level of government, I, for my part, hold the view that it should first be made by the government which is essentially responsible for matters relating to the family, that is, for us from the province, the Quebec government.
We have here a view which has the merit of having been expressed by one of our greatest sociologists in the province of Quebec, by a man who took the trouble to study constitutional problems and was a member of the Tremblay commission, recently referred to by Mr. Lesage, and therefore a man who, in dealing with such problems, does so as one who has gone deeply into the matter, and knows the subject from all angles, including the legal one.
So Rev. Father Ares tells us that the family comes within provincial jurisdiction. It is so true that, in the civil code there are at least four or five complete chapters dealing with the relationships between husband and wife, between father and children, between wife and children, between grandfather and grandchildren, about the order of inheritance, all of their problems that lie exclusively within provincial jurisdiction, because relationships between individuals are problems of private law. The matter goes so far that I should like to make my point clear by stating a concrete example. If a family wants to change its name, the authority which will allow it to do so, which is able to achieve that purpose, the only one that exists, is the

Human Rights
provincial legislature and not the federal government. In other words, if family rights such as they might be defined on the basis of suggestions put forward in the committee, are not mentioned in the present bill of rights, it is solely and exclusively out of respect for the clearly expressed will of members on both sides of the house not to interfere in a field which is outside our scope, as this would have been a violation of the constitution, of which we are the guardians and which is truly the cornerstone of Canadian unity.
Mr. Chairman, before closing my remarks, I again thank the hon. member for Essex East, and I would not want to take undue advantage of the kindness that is being shown to me.
In conclusion, may I say that here is a bill of rights that will be of considerable educational value for the Canadian people, for our children, for every province, because in future, we will have the solemn statement that here is the death knell of prejudices, to which all of us have been more or less subjected in the days of our youth and which still live in certain parts of Canada, prejudices whereby a person, because of the colour of his skin, is looked upon as a stranger, or gives the impression of somehow not belonging altogether to the human species.
The other day I had an opportunity of meeting the prime minister of the Congo. What pride I felt when I had the privilege of thanking him after a speech he made,-how proud I was to be able to quote section 1 of the bill of human rights which told him that here, in Canada, the skin, the colour, the religion, all those things are in no way a handicap to those who wish to live here in Canada, in this land blessed by God. He noticed the atmosphere of the country that was welcoming him, just as he noticed the relation of our culture with that of the Congo or the Congolese.
Mr. Chairman, this bill will have an educational value for our children, for the provinces and for all people in Canada; it will show mankind that, here in Canada, spiritual and moral values come first, that material values are subordinate to spiritual values and that our rights are established according to specific principles. Moreover, nationals of other countries who wish to work with us, to join their efforts and their strength with ours and thus to form with us the population of Canada,

will know where we stand and will feel that at last, on Canadian soil, they have found the land of freedom.


Mr. Cardin:: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Dorion) allow me to ask a question?


Noël Dorion: Yes.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Should some of the remarks of the member for Bellechasse be understood as an objection to the proposal made by the premier of Quebec to call a federal-provincial conference to consider together the possibility of adopting a bill of rights on a national scale a proposition which seems to have been endorsed by the Prime Minister of Canada?


Noël Dorion: My honourable colleague will find that I said nothing of the kind. All I said was that, to my mind, the question was premature because its consideration requires preliminary groundwork, and especially, a knowledge of the extent to which a national bill of rights might affect the fundamental rights of the province of Quebec.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: May I put a supplementary question to the member for Bellechasse?


Noël Dorion: Yes.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Is this not the very purpose of the consultation and the conference that would be held in that connection?


An hon. Member:: He did not say so.


Noël Dorion: That was not my understanding. The reports I have seen may not be complete, but that was not what I gathered. But even if it were so, I fail to see how this bill could possibly stand in the way of that further consideration. On the contrary, in my opinion it represents a giant step towards the elimination of a difficulty comparable by nature to that suggested by the member for Richelieu-Vercheres (Mr. Cardin).
(Text):


Mr. Badanai:: The first thing I should like to do is express my appreciation for the privilege of serving on this committee. While the number of days during which the committee sat were comparatively few, considering the importance of the subject, the number of hours spent in an exhaustive study of submissions and the evidence of witnesses were many. Of all the committees on which I have had the honour to serve, the committee on the bill of rights was by far the most absorbing and interesting, and by and large its work was carried out in an atmosphere of

congenial friendliness, as was pointed out so eloquently by the hon. member for Belle-chasse, a very distinguished member of the committee.
I would also say that while the amendments put forward by the members of the opposition did not always secure the approval of the majority, nevertheless considerable progress was made, thanks to the co-operative attitude of the Minister of Justice and the capable chairman of the committee, the hon. member for Essex West, who conducted the meetings in a very fair and efficient manner. For all these reasons, not the least of which is the opportunity afforded to me of making a small contribution toward such a noble objective, I am glad this bill of rights was introduced this session, despite its many imperfections.
Having paid a well-earned compliment to the hon. member for Essex West it would be unfair if I did not mention the leadership given to the committee by the hon. member for Essex East, whose keen legal mind was a tower of strength in the committee's deliberations, the results of which are evident in the improvement of the bill. Thus, having laced the sage man of the west with the wise man of the east, I express the sincere hope that once passed this bill will not be forgotten and left in its present form, even its amended form, but that the Prime Minister will ensure that it is discussed with all the provinces with the end in view that a real Canadian bill of rights, which would stand up in all conditions, in all circumstances and in all the provinces may be enacted at the earliest possible moment.
During the committee hearings we heard evidence from a number of organizations and several distinguished individual experts whose opinions were carefully weighed and from which we in the opposition learned much. This was helpful in bringing in our amendments. Unfortunately, many of our 20-odd amendments, most of which were based on the recommendations of the witnesses and of such historic documents as the United Nations declaration of human rights and the United States bill of rights, were rejected, in my view on insufficient legislative grounds, with the result that opportunities of particularizing the rights to be protected were lost.
However, the minister did accept the principle of a preamble, which we had advocated from the beginning. This, incidentally, was first suggested by the Leader of the Opposition. Several members of the committee on both sides proposed preambles, all of which contained meritorious ideas and phraseology, in an attempt to make our bill of rights a memorable document. The preamble which
Human Rights
was finally adopted was really a product of the whole committee, despite press reports which indicated that it was the brain child of the Minister of Justice. The preamble really gives dignity to the document, which is largely legalistic and skimpy in its specification of the rights contained in it. My suggested preamble was as follows:
In recognition that the Canadian people believe in the dignity of man and are composed of many races and religious beliefs, the parliament of Canada hereby declares and reaffirms the people's fundamental liberty to work and to worship his God to the satisfaction of his conscience and Her Majesty, the Queen, with the advice and consent of the Senate and the House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows-
However, the one which was finally adopted was a much better introduction to the bill. A good job was done on the preamble.
I have indicated that the minister did accept some of our amendments, one of which, incidentally, is the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty. This is one of the amendments I was ready to introduce when the minister announced that he had such an amendment already in mind, for which I congratulated the minister on his foresight and almost clairvoyant perception.
Another amendment which I proposed in committee and which the minister accepted was that no persons should be deprived of the right to reasonable bail without just cause. Incidentally, this clause is part of the United States bill of rights, which prescribes that excessive bail should not be required. I think the minister was wise in accepting this amendment, which undoubtedly gives clause 2 more substance.
What I could not appreciate was the minister's reluctance to spelling out specific provisions in language easy for everyone to understand, instead of leaving meanings up in the air and making provision by inference. Provision by inference is not good enough in a bill of rights for the people of Canada.
With this truism in mind the Liberal members of the committee moved a number of amendments the effect of which would have been to make the bill more specific and more meaningful to the general public as well as to the courts. At least one of these was anticipated and, as I indicated earlier, was introduced by the minister himself before we moved to fill the gap. Others were accepted on our motion. Too many, however, were rejected by the minister and voted down by the majority of the committee.
It is easy to find important examples to illustrate my point. I shall, however, refer to one about which I feel particularly strongly. Last Thursday afternoon I moved in the

Human Rights
committee that the following provision be added to clause 2 as it then stood:
The right of the individual to earn a living and to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work, and to protection against unemployment.
This amendment like many others was rejected at least partially on the ground that it is now embraced, not separately and individually but in the sum total of the bill as it now is before the committee of the whole house. Further, in this particular rejection the Minister of Justice clarified the government's position as being that this amendment was nothing more than the statement of an objective the realization of which would require specific measures. I am referring to what the minister said as reported in the proceedings and minutes of the committee, on page 663. He went on to say that we already have such a measure on the statute books, the Unemployment Insurance Act. There are, of course, others.
This is the very point I made in moving the amendment when I said, as reported in the minutes on page 661:
-the right which is envisioned-has been generally recognized in Canada during most of this century.
I might, had I not wanted to avoid verbosity-and I am not prone to speaking at length at any time-have gone into detail to show that there was nothing in the proposed amendment which was inconsistent with the general statement of the present clause 1. The rights referred to may be only objectives for some countries of the world, as the minister argued. They are, however, generally recognized rights in Canada, and the minister chose to ignore the need for the classification of these rights.
My proposed amendment to the effect that the Minister of Justice shall report legislative inconsistencies to an appropriate standing committee of the House of Commons, and that all petitions of citizens who feel that their rights had been infringed be referred to that committee, was rejected. In view of the minister's reply that there is not now such a committee, and in view of the amendment now incorporated in clause 3 providing that the minister shall report inconsistencies to the house, I propose at the beginning of the next session of this parliament to move the establishment of a standing committee on human rights and fundamental freedoms.
Anyone who cares to do so can learn of the effectiveness of the New Zealand public petitions committee. I addressed myself to that subject in the debate on second reading of this bill. The Prime Minister in closing that debate almost seconded my proposal
[Mr. Badanai.l
to establish a similar committee in this parliament which, after all, should not lag far behind the younger parliaments of the commonwealth in protecting the rights of its citizens. On second reading of the bill, as reported at page 5684 of Hansard of July 4, I made the following suggestion:
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.
Some may forget what the Prime Minister said on July 7, as reported at page 5948 of Hansard:
When it is suggested that there should be a scrutiny committee, may I say that that suggestion which I have made on other occasions is one that deserves the fullest consideration and no doubt it will be among those things which will be considered and deliberated upon in the days to come.
Those were the words of the Prime Minister. I think any legislative or other inconsistencies reported to the house by the Minister of Justice might well be referred to a standing committee on human rights and fundamental freedoms. Likewise, all petitions to be based on the Canadian bill of rights should be referred to such a committee. It should then classify and condense the petitions in such form and manner as might appear best suited to convey to the house all requisite information respecting their contents. The committee should have power to sit at any time, to send for papers and persons, but not for ministers; the place for ministers to argue is in the house. The committee should be assisted and advised in its work by a competent parliamentary official such as the parliamentary counsel.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, as I observe that you are rising to call it one o'clock may I ask if the committee would give unanimous consent to allow the hon. gentleman to finish his remarks? Perhaps we could also continue through the lunch hour.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Charles Edward Rea: In order that we may have it straight, is it agreed that the hon. member be permitted to continue his remarks or is it agreed that we continue through the lunch hour?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Perhaps we could first obtain agreement to let the hon. member finish.


Charles Edward Rea: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Hubert Badanai: I thank the committee, Mr. Chairman. To continue, the committee should



[Stage Direction]
have power to report to the house from time to time and to submit its opinions and observations on the matters before it. With regard to petitions it should be able to recommend that petitions (a) be rejected; or (b) be referred by the House of Commons to the government for (1) consideration, (2) favourable consideration and (3) granting in whole or in part; or (c) the committee might recommend that the petitioners take action in the courts.
I have no doubt that when this committee had been functioning for a time our experience would reflect the beneficial results which have been already indicated by the New Zealand experience. To my mind such a committee is an indispensable institution to assure the rights and freedoms proclaimed in the Canadian bill of rights.
Douglas Mason Fisher: One o'clock.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Would the hon. gentleman agree to going on?


Douglas Mason Fisher: The hon. gentleman would not. Some of us have arranged a meeting for one o'clock.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Well, we tried.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2 p.m.
Mr. Stewart:: In speaking on this bill on July 4, on second reading, as reported in Hansard, starting at page 5695, I attempted to set out some of the difficulties that were apparent to me and some of the problems that this bill engendered; but I concluded my remarks by suggesting that even if there were imperfections in the bill it went a long way toward establishing in Canada basic rights and fundamental freedoms, and I suggested that we should adopt the measure so that we might place upon the statute books of this country those things that we as Canadian people have enjoyed as part of our way of life.
It is true that there are uncertainties in the bill; there are difficulties arising out of Canada's constitutional set-up, but uncertainties applied to the British North America Act, and had our forefathers at the time of confederation allowed those uncertainties and difficulties to stand in the way we would not have the Dominion of Canada today. The truth of that statement lies in the fact that almost 200 cases have arisen over the interpretation of the British North America Act, and over 100 have gone to the privy council
Human Rights
for adjudication. I see no reason for changing the opinion I expressed on that previous occasion, but after having had an opportunity to serve on the committee I think I have a better appreciation of the problems and difficulties connected with the bill as well as the advantages and the help that it will provide for all Canadians.
First of all I wish to thank the hon. member for Essex West, who was chairman of that committee. He did a remarkable job, considering that he had a very diversified class to work with. I want to thank also the members of the committee, and I have particular thanks and praise for the hon. member for Bellechasse and also the hon. member for Essex East. I did not agree with him on many occasions, but I think every member of the committee had a keen appreciation of the other person's point of view, and out of the deliberations has come the bill now before us. At this time I want to thank the Prime Minister for introducing a bill which is so important to the people of this country.
In speaking on this bill yesterday the Leader of the Opposition had some criticisms to offer, and I want to refer to some of those criticisms. The first criticism had to do with the timing of the bill. He criticized the Prime Minister for, after having introduced the bill in 1958, delaying its introduction this year until July 1. I should like to refer the Leader of the Opposition-and I do this kindly, without any unjust criticism-to several of the briefs submitted to the special committee and some of the observations made therein by those who presented the briefs. I want to refer to the brief of the congress of labour, in which they said they had been trying since 1947 to have a bill of rights introduced in Canada. I refer io the brief of the associated civil liberties committee, and they also refer to 1947. Therefore I feel that the criticism of the Leader of the Opposition as to timing is most unjust and most unkind.
I should like to place on the record an observation made in one of the briefs, which appears in the committee record. I refer to the brief of the seventh day adventists, at page 71:
The passage of this measure will mark an historic and significant milestone for this country in its quest for freedom and peace under the rule of law.
The leader of the C.C.F. party also had some criticisms regarding the proposed bill, and although he was a member of that committee -and I say this not unkindly-his contribution to the deliberations did not measure up to the contribution made by the other members. In this connection I want to place on

Human Rights
record my appreciation of the contribution made by the members of the official opposition. On all occasions they co-operated with the steering committee and with the committee itself in its deliberations.
The Leader of the Opposition referred to the observations of Professor Scott in which he was rather critical of the bill; but I would point out to him that Professor Scott, although critical of the bill, did not bring to the committee, in my opinion at least, any constructive proposals. His only proposal was in the form of a constitutional amendment. His proposed amendment was to the effect that the parliament of Canada should surrender part of its sovereignty; in other words, it should place beyond itself the right to amend its own constitution, the right to have any power over its own institutions.
I point out to the leader of the C.C.F. party that this proposal was not concurred in by A. N. Carter, Q.C., a distinguished New Brunswick lawyer. In an article in the Canadian Bar Review, which is also part of the record of the committee, he said that taking that step would result in placing the Canadian constitution farther away from the Canadian people and the Canadian parliament.
The same opinion as to a constitutional amendment was introduced by Dr. Forsey, who appeared with the Canadian Labour Congress delegation. He agreed with Professor Scott that an amendment to the constitution should be made in order that Canada could no longer change its constitution so as to interfere with any fundamental rights and freedoms previously established.
I suggest that is not the proper approach to this matter and is a regressive step. The hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont, speaking in the house this morning, pointed out that the bill of rights does not in express terms, except in the preamble, deal with family life. I suggest to him, as has been pointed out by the hon. member for Belle-chasse, that the rights of the family are included in the individual rights set out in the bill. The bill of rights cannot affect a unit or a group but must apply to that group through the individuals comprising it. I suggest that in the personal freedoms set out in the bill we have looked after and protected the family group.
What were some of the criticisms levelled at the proposed bill before the committee? I suggested in my previous remarks and I suggested in the committee that the bill is not perfect, but I submit that it deals only with those matters within the legislative jurisdiction of the federal government and for the present that is all we can expect. We have heard a great deal about the possibility of an amendment to the constitution in consultation with

the provinces. I suggest to the committee that that is a far cry from actual consent, and it was submitted by various witnesses before the committee that such consent would not be forthcoming, at the present time. It is very significant, as was pointed out in the committee, that this new approach was made in the closing days of the committee's deliberations.
There has been some criticism that the bill infringes on provincial rights. I submit, Mr. Chairman, that this fear has been banished by the address of the hon. member for Bellechasse, supported as it was by the evidence of the various witnesses before the committee. I need only refer to the evidence of Professor Scott and Professor Bowker, who said there was no infringement of provincial rights. The committee on civil liberties, the Canadian Labour Congress and even Dr. Forsey said that the bill in its present form did not infringe or attempt to infringe upon any provincial matter. I would also refer the committee to the evidence given by Dr. Maxwell Cohen of McGill University, as reported at page 373 of the evidence.
As I intimated before, it was proposed in the closing days of the committee's deliberations that the matter should be postponed and the provinces should be consulted. That was not the attitude of the Canadian Labour Congress. As found on page 226 of the evidence they say that we should pass the present bill, that it will be a step in the right direction, and then at the proper time and place we should discuss with the provinces those amendments necessary to make our constitution wholly Canadian and our bill of rights wholly national.
We also have the statement of Professor Lower at page 323 of the evidence, that in the present state of the country the provinces would not consent. I assume that the professor made that statement with a keen appreciation of the problems involved. We also have the evidence given by Professor Bowker that he was opposed to a constitutional amendment.
These are some of the criticisms that have been raised with respect to the bill. There has also been some talk in the past about sending the bill to the Supreme Court of Canada by way of a reference in order to determine its validity. That suggestion has been more or less dispelled by the evidence given in the committee. I refer to the brief of the Canadian Labour Congress and the evidence of Professor Bowker and others who were opposed to such a procedure. The consensus of all the witnesses was that this bill should be passed and then, as developments

occurred, the necessary changes could be made or a reference then made to the Supreme Court.
We are not dealing here with a subject matter than can be pigeonholed and categorically defined. We are dealing with human rights. We are dealing with the play and interplay of human relations on human beings, and we can only legislate in that field with an appreciation and an understanding of all the prolbems that arise from that relationship. There are no absolute rights when dealing with human beings. Those freedoms set out in the bill are relative freedoms. They are, as one of the witnesses before the committee pointed out, more "values" than freedoms. Freedom is not licence. It is freedom under rule of law; it is freedom under recognized customs of society, laws that we ourselves have established, and it is within and under these laws that we must conduct our human relations.
We in Canada enjoy freedoms brought to this country from two great bodies of law, the common law of England and the Roman law in so far as it has been adapted as part of the civil code. It is in the development of that law, the interrelation of the groups with each other, that we make progress. Progress, after all, is only continual adaptation to an ever-changing environment. Macaulay in his essay "The History of the Revolution" says:
The history of England is emphatically the history of progress. It is the history of a constant movement of the public mind, of a constant change in the constitution of a great society.
Dicey and other writers of the eighteenth century could and did write of the sovereignty of parliament and the rule of law as the cardinal features of the English constitution. However, over the intervening years there has been a gradual change, as Sir Alfred Denning points out in his book "The Changing Law", at page 1:
In legal theory parliament is still sovereign, and we still claim to be under the rule of law; but anxiety is raised in many quarters by the growing powers of the executive. The change has no doubt been forced upon us by circumstances. You cannot fight great wars except by giving your leaders power to make great decisions and to translate them into immediate action. You cannot safeguard your currency and trade in a competitive world except by strict control over exchange, and over exports and imports. You cannot ensure fair distribution of necessaries which are in short supply except by a system of rationing. You cannot nationalize essential industries except by putting them under the general direction of the government. All this involves the entrusting of great powers to the executive; and the powers, once given, are apt to continue indefinitely. Some, indeed, have been made permanent; and others cannot be retracted.
If that is a true indication of our present state in Canada, I suggest to the members of
79951-0-468
Human Rights
this committee that this bill of rights will serve as a curb on the growing power of the executive. After referring to the power of the executive, in the same book at page 2, the author refers to Westminster hall and to the power and place that should be occupied by the courts. He says:
Such memories will bring back to you some of the great constitutional issues which have been decided by the English people. But you should also remember that, in this hall for nigh on 700 years, the judges of England laid down the common law which precisely defined the rights of the individual and made the life and liberty of every law-abiding citizen secure from injury on the part of others or of the state. Here sat the judges of England right from the days of King Henry II in 1189 till the year 1873 when the courts were moved to their present situation in the Strand. The principles laid down by them have sunk deep into the mind of the nation and have been more powerful than anything else in creating the spirit of the British constitution. If you reflect on all this in that hall, so strong and so well balanced, so built as if for all time, you will get a sense of wonderful history, and with it a knowledge that the English people-and their cousins throughout the British commonwealth-are heirs of a spiritual worth which is a greater power in the world than armies or navies or atomic bombs.
I quoted that part to show this is something that is inbred in every true Canadian. I ask that at this time we keep this basic concept of freedom in mind in our examination of this bill. The bill might not be all we want, but I submit that it is a step in the right direction, and as long as the people of this country are conscious of their rights and freedoms and are determined to retain and to improve those freedoms, we are safe from intrusions and there will forever remain in the minds of Canadians a desire for those things which have been set out in this bill of rights. The criticism that it does not go far enough in some respects, that it is uncertain in some respects, that in one or more aspects it might infringe on some of the powers now held by the provinces, in my opinion should not be valid reasons for withholding passage of this bill.


Mr. Batten:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say, first of all, how grateful I am for the privilege of having been a member of the special committee on the bill of rights. I came from that committee with a much clearer conception of what the problems are, and of the importance of a bill of rights to the Canadian people. I am not a lawyer, and I speak as a layman. As a result of being a member of that committee I was able to see the bill of rights in broader view than I had before going into the committee.
I am not, Mr. Chairman, going to make any very extended remarks at this time, as I shall be following with a great deal of interest some of the clauses which will come

Human Rights
before the committee this afternoon. However, since I did not speak on either of the earlier occasions upon which this bill was before us, I should like to state now that I support a bill of rights for Canada. We live in a country which has a wide expanse; we have people of many races, many creeds and different customs. Because of these differences I think we need something to bind us together so that we will become a nation. I recognize the fact that many of the freedoms and fundamental rights that are mentioned in this bill are already on the statute books of Canada. However, I feel it is a good thing to bring them to our notice, and I think it is a good thing to bring them to our notice in the terms of a bill of rights. I think they will mean something to all Canadians, particularly to new Canadians.
I, too, Mr. Chairman, in some respects am a new Canadian. I say to the committee now that I am a new Canadian and I am proud of it. I believe there are thousands of my countrymen who are proud of this, too. I say, as well, that if their loyalty to this nation is ever excelled it will only be by the loyalty of those who have always had the privilege of calling themselves Canadians.
Again, I say we live in a country that has a wide expanse and in which there are many differences. The bill of rights will serve once again to unite us into one nation. Unity without freedom could very well be tyranny. Multiplicity, on the other hand, might very well be chaos. I think one of the great strengths of the Canadian nation is that we have a unity in multiplicity. Perhaps it is in building up that unity in multiplicity that our bill of rights becomes very important, for no nation can be cemented together until its people as individuals recognize that freedom is not licence to do what we want to do, but the privilege of doing what we ought to do.
I would have liked to see a national bill of rights. I can see the difficulties in the way. I would have liked to see a stronger bill of rights than we have now. Again I can see some difficulties in the way there. But not having either of these, Mr. Chairman, I am going to support the bill of rights as we have it today.
The work in the committee was rather concentrated. We had a comparatively large number of witnesses over a comparatively short space of time. I think the bill now before us, which has just come out of the special committee, is better than the bill which went into the committee. I am not going to recount any further the work of this committee; that has been done by other members of the committee and I am sure will be well known to those who have read the evidence.
IMr. Batten.]
But I do think that we did not have quite enough time to do the important job that was entrusted to us. I think maybe if we had had more time and this bill had been brought into the house earlier in the session, there would have been the possibility of having before the committee more witnesses with a greater diversity of opinion. I also think many Canadians with strong feelings about the bill of rights would have made presentations if there had been more time for them to do so. Certainly for many of those who would have liked to come to this committee, they had little time to prepare the evidence which they would have liked to submit.
Then again, another thing which I thought was important was that some of the briefs which were presented, either written or in oral form, were worthy of more study, and when the committee was operating at the pace it was there was little time to give the presentations the type of attention they deserved.
I do not quite agree with the hon. member for Charlotte. He and I sat on this committee together and I appreciate the opportunity I had of knowing and appreciating him better, both as a member of parliament and as a man. But both of us having sat on the bill of rights I know he is going to accord me the right of differing with him. I do not think there was enough time to give this bill the attention which it deserved, and I do not think the Canadian Labour Congress took the view he suggested it did. Mr. Chairman, let me read from page 2 of their brief, as set out on page 191 of volume 3 of the evidence. The Canadian Labour Congress said this:
First and foremost, it feels that at this stage of a session of parliament the present bill cannot receive from this committee the careful and thorough consideration it ought to receive.
The brief went on further to say:
Great issues, profound issues, issues of immense legal difficulty, are at stake. It is simply impossible for any individual, however learned, however eloquent, however long he has considered these questions, to present his views adequately upon a few days' notice. It is simply impossible for all the individuals who should be heard to make their views known to you within the compass of five or six days. And what is true of individuals is even truer of organizations, which, in the nature of things, need more time to prepare their submissions.
This is not the way to deal with questions of such import. It is not seemly. It does not give the people of Canada the chance they ought to have, and were led to expect they would have, to present their views with that coherence and order which so high a matter demands.
I think there were others, too, who made presentations before this committee who regretted the fact that this bill had not been brought in earlier and been given more time

for the study of its various implications. We did have individuals who came and gave their private opinions. We also had individuals who presented briefs on behalf of organizations. I was one of those who thought some representatives from the provinces should have presented briefs on behalf of the provinces. I am not referring now to the constitutional rights of the provinces or the question of the constitutionality of the bill; I am referring to the fact that if we had one representative before the committee representing a certain organization, surely some representative from each of the ten provinces should also have had the right to appear before this committee.
I further believe that additional progress could have been made toward a national bill if earlier in the year an effort had been made to contact the provinces and ascertain their feelings on this very important matter. In fact, from statements made at the recent federal-provincial conference there were indications that perhaps we could get a little nearer to agreement on this matter than we thought possible a month ago. However, I think we as Canadians can look forward to the time when other steps will be taken in this very important period of constitutional history in our country, and that in time a national bill of rights will become a reality for all Canadians.


Mr. Spencer:: Mr. Chairman, I would like at the outset to express, as did the hon. member for Fort William, the intense pride and honour that I felt was mine to sit on this committee on the bill of rights. I subscribe to everything he said with the exception of the very kind, and I must say gratuitous, reference that he made to me as chairman of that committee.
It is true that at the outset we on the committee did run into troubled waters and rough weather, and if it had not been for the fact that we had a very excellent crew I am afraid we might have lost our cargo. However, the storm subsided just about as quickly as it arose, and from that point on we enjoyed the work he had to do together, and in due course of time we completed our work, brought our ship into port and landed our cargo. It is true that in the process of reaching port we did take on a little additional cargo, but I must say that the bill of rights which we reported to this house is essentially and fundamentally the same bill of rights which was assigned to us for study.
I was rather surprised when the hon. member for Assiniboia expressed the opinion that this bill as reported contained about 50 per cent of new material. I must differ with that. I think a study of the bill which is before 79951-0-468J
Human Rights
us now, apart from the preamble which it was indicated at the outset would be an acceptable addition, would show there have been only five changes made in this measure. First of all in clause 1, which is the clause now before the committee, there was a change made which emphasized rather than added the right to the freedoms which are set forth in that clause, without discrimination by reason of race, national origin, colour, religion or sex. Those words were simply taken out of subclause (b) of that clause and were added to the premises for the purpose, as I think, of emphasizing that these rights and freedoms were to be enjoyed by everyone without discrimination.
In that respect I think we set at rest what may be referred to by some as criticisms. I do not look upon them as being that. I look upon them as being only constructive suggestions.
We made three additions to clause 2, and again I emphasize that these are not matters which were not included in the general enumeration of rights and freedoms in clause 1. Clause 2, after all, is the interpretative clause, and it is in that clause that an attempt is made to spell out in particular those things to which the courts must have regard when it comes to the interpretation or the application of the laws of the parliament of Canada.
These changes involved, first of all, the removal from subclause (b) of the words that were contained therein as to the imposition of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. What the committee did in this instance was to substitute for those words the phrase "cruel and unusual treatment or punishment". I am not going to deal with reasons for that, as these will come up later when we come to consider this particular clause, but fundamentally it was the same language we had in that clause before, except that we wanted to make it clear that it did not contemplate the abrogation of any punishment in the present Criminal Code.
The other two changes in this clause were made in subclause (f), and again I say that this was only for the purpose of spelling out in greater detail, without becoming too verbose, those rights and freedoms declared in the first clause of the bill. What was added, then, v/as a well known and well recognized basic principle of criminal law in this country, namely that a person shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty; and along with that we added at the end of that clause the rights to reasonable bail unless there was just cause for refusing it. These are rights which are already preserved in our Criminal Code, but because of the suggestions made

Human Rights
by many that we should proceed a little further in clause 2 to spell out in detail the rights and freedoms stated, the committee went along with the suggestions to add those provisions.
The fifth and last change has to do with the next clause, which relates to the functions of the Minister of Justice. There was a good deal of consideration given to the matter. He had to examine the statutes and it was uncertain, having done that, what his duties should be. Now the clause sets forth his duties, and so on. It was considered desirable to add to that clause the words to be found at the end of the present clause 3, namely that at the first opportunity he should report to the house any inconsistency relating to acts of parliament or regulations passed or intended to be passed.
That is the sum and substance of the changes which have been made in this bill. The other things we did were simply to rearrange the contents and make it perhaps a better bill, in that the bill of rights would be in a form suitable for posting on the walls of schools, church assembly halls and so on, and perhaps make it a little more readily understandable by the layman.
Now, having indicated that the bill which we have reported is essentially the same bill we received, I should like to add my voice to the many others who have spoken for this bill not only during the four days of debate on second reading but previously in this committee. The Prime Minister, as we know, has for years advocated a bill of rights in written form. He has devoted a great deal of his time in this house to urging upon the government of the day that this should be done. No one, I believe, has worked any harder to bring about a removal of the prejudices that unfortunately still exist in this country, and to bring about unity not only between the two great races in this land, the French and the English, but also between those of other races or their descendants who have come and joined us in establishing a Canadian nation.
At this stage I should like to put on record a matter that was referred to by the Prime Minister when he spoke on July 1. That was the resolution the hon. gentleman introduced in the House of Commons on May 3, 1946, at the time the house was considering amendments to the Citizenship Act. I do so in order to indicate that as far back as 14 years ago the Prime Minister held the views that he holds today and which in the main are embodied in the bill before us. The motion moved by the hon. gentleman on that occasion was in these words:

That the following words be added to the section as subsection 6: "Such certificate of citizenship shall be deemed to include a bill of rights as follows:
1.	Freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and the right to peaceable assembly are assured.
2.	Habeas corpus shall not be suspended except by parliament.
3.	No one shall be required to give evidence before any tribunal or commission at any time if denied counsel or other constitutional safeguards."
That was the resolution introduced at that time. From that time forward, year in and year out, the records of parliament will show that the Prime Minister has persisted in advocating the early adoption of a bill of rights in statutory form.
Before referring to some of the views expressed by those who appeared before the committee perhaps I may be allowed to put on record the names of the organizations and individuals who appeared, in view of the references made by the last hon. member who spoke. It is true that the committee dealt with this bill in a reasonably short period of time, but the committee worked diligently and thoroughly. In that period of time the committee held no less than 25 meetings and heard representations from the following: Professor F. R. Scott of McGill University; Professor C. P. Wright of Ottawa University; Professor C. R. Dehler of St. Eustache sur le Lac; Rev. D. L. Michael, executive secretary of the Seventh Day Adventist church in Canada; Mr. Saul Hayes, Q.C., executive secretary of the Canadian Jewish congress; Mr. Donald Mclnnes, Q.C., dominion vice president of the Canadian Bar Association and representing that association; Professor Bowker, dean of the faculty of law of the University of Alberta; Mr. Irving Himel, Q.C., executive secretary of the association for civil liberties; Mr. Claude Jodoin, president, as well as other officials, representing the Canadian Labour Congress; Mr. F. R. Varcoe, Q.C., a former deputy attorney general for Canada; Mr. L. A. Tufts, representing the Christian Science committee on publications of the Christian Science church; Professor A. R. Lower of Queen's University; Professor O. E. Lang of the faculty of law of the University of Saskatchewan; Professor Maxwell Cohen, acting dean of the faculty of law of McGill University and Mr. D. W. Mundell, Q.C., who for two years was chairman of the civil liberties section of the Canadian Bar Association.
That is a formidable list of witnesses who appeared before the committee. In addition we had the Minister of Justice with us at several meetings explaining and dealing with the various clauses of the bill. The committee also had before it briefs which were submitted in written form. Other persons and

organizations had also been contacted but did not appear before the committee, because in most instances it was indicated to the committee that their points of view had already been presented to it.
I suppose that a committee sitting to discuss a bill as important and far-reaching as this could go on endlessly hearing witnesses. Every time publicity was given to the views of a witness before the committee we would at once receive word that somebody holding a different view would like to appear. I am convinced in my own mind, as I am sure every hon. member of the committee is, that we had placed before us every conceivable point of view which could be advanced in regard to this bill, and that no useful purpose would have been served by having two, three, four or more witnesses appearing before the committee to present essentially the same argument.
I think that also applies to this committee. In that respect I hope to avoid repeating the arguments advanced by other hon. members of the committee. Reiteration of the same point of view is not what was needed by the committee that dealt with the bill. I am confident that we had before us all the points of view that could be presented, and that no useful purpose would have been served by continuing to hear further points of view or having the committee sit at greater length.
May I refer to the views expressed by Rev. D. L. Michael on behalf of the Seventh Day Adventist church in Canada, which appear on page 70 of the minutes of proceedings and evidence. He said this:
The Prime Minister and government are to be commended for the genuine concern in the preservation and extension of human rights that the introduction of this bill represents. Members of the Adventist Church in Canada have watched with great interest the efforts of the Right Hon. John G. Diefenbaker, Hon. David A. Croll, Mr. M. J. Coldwell, Hon. Arthur W. Roebuck and many others to secure the basic rights of Canadian citizens through a comprehensive bill of rights.
The work of many public spirited individuals now finds fruition in this step that the parliament of Canada is being asked to take. The passage of this measure will mark an historic and significant milestone for this country in its quest for freedom and peace under the rule of law.
I am not going to repeat them, but the hon. member for Greenwood earlier in this debate referred to the words of Professor Lower somewhat along the same line. Again, may I read from page 132 of the evidence the opinion expressed by Mr. Hayes on behalf of the Canadian Jewish Congress. He said:
We highly commend the Canadian government for having introduced Bill C-79 and recommend its early adoption with such refinements of text as the labours of this committee will produce.
There were others who appeared before the committee and expressed similar views. It
Human Rights
is true there were some who felt that a bill of rights such as this should be somehow enshrined in the constitution, but I think without exception-there may have been some mental reservations-everyone admitted that in any event this was a first step and a big step toward that ultimate which some of them thought desirable.
Much has been said about the views of Professor Scott. As has been said, the professor did not have very many fine things to say about this bill, but he did have a view to express which I think I should refer to because to my mind it was a retrograde step that he felt the committee and parliament should take. In that connection may I read what he said at page 24 of the evidence.
A method by which an amendment could be obtained without necessarily having prior consultations with the provinces is; if the parliament of Canada wished, it could secure a constitutional amendment which would take away from itself in the future the power to make Canadian statutes contrary to certain basic human rights. It could do that-and since the amendment would in no way affect the present rights of the provinces, the prior agreement of the provinces to that constitutional change would, in my opinion, not be necessary-no consultation would be necessary. If the parliament of Canada wishes to have less legislative authority than it now possesses, there is nothing to prevent it, as it were giving that authority back to the United Kingdom parliament and leaving it there for the time being.
If I understood the professor, that simply meant that to enshrine those rights and freedoms in a constitution so it could not be changed by this or a subsequent parliament, he had in mind the retrograde step of returning to the United Kingdom the powers which over the years we have consistently advocated should be removed from the United Kingdom and brought to Canada. Therefore it appears to me that in the view of some who criticized this bill on the ground that they would prefer to have a constitutional amendment, in order to have the kind of amendment which would not be subject to change we would have to surrender some of our Canadian sovereignty.
What has been Canadian history, particularly over recent years? It has obviously been an attempt by the people to obtain rights against the state. First of all, as we go back into English history-and I must say that in his evidence Professor Cohen gave us a very good but rather lengthy review of the evolution of the freedoms that we enjoy today-we find that the power of the crown was supreme. Then there was a contest to remove that power from the sovereign and give it to parliament. In time that did succeed, but there was also at the same time a contest between the power of the state and the individual and that went on-

Human Rights


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


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. gentleman should be allowed to finish his remarks.


Jacques Flynn: Does the committee give unanimous consent to the hon. member proceeding?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Norman Leonard Spencer: Mr. Chairman, I thank the committee for extending this privilege to me, and I will make my remaining remarks as brief as I possibly can. May I at this point refer to a matter mentioned by the Prime Minister during the course of his remarks in the debate on the bill; namely the Quebec Act, passed in 1774 which, as hon. members will recall, granted freedom of religion to the people of the province of Quebec, which at that time comprised practically all of Canada as it was then constituted. With that, of course, went the freedom to profess and practise the religion of the church of Rome. This measure preceded the granting of freedom of religion in the United Kingdom.
Hon. members will also recall that at that time slavery existed in the provinces of Canada. Immediately after the passing of the act which divided the then province of Quebec into Upper and Lower Canada we find that in 1793 an act was passed in Upper Canada for the abolition of slavery. This act passed in our country preceded by 40 years the statute of the United Kingdom of 1833 which abolished slavery throughout all British possessions. I think it is desirable to quote from the act of 1793, which provided in part as follows:
No negro or other person who shall come or be brought into this province. .. shall be subject to the condition of a slave or to bounden involuntary service for life.
Of course that did not free slaves already in Upper Canada, but the act went on to provide that every child born after the passing of the act of a negro mother or other woman subjected to such service should become absolutely free on attaining the age of 25, the master in the meantime to provide proper nourishment and clothing for the child. The act further declared that all issue of such children would be free whenever born.
Here in Upper Canada, a British colony abolished slavery by legislation for the first time. The struggle for the emancipation of man as against the power of the state and as against other individuals went on. True, in the course of time we came to feel, mainly through the courts, that there existed a natural law under which we had certain well

defined rights and freedoms, but they were never embodied in a statute; and it was undoubtedly the view of the Prime Minister that at the very first opportunity that would avail itself to him he should urge that this be done. It must afford great satisfaction to him that now, after many years of struggle and effort, parliament has before it and I hope will enact, a statute which will be a monument to him, and something of which not only the Prime Minister but all of us who have participated in the work of the special committee and in the consideration of the measure in parliament will be justly proud in years to come.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Chairman, I have no great contribution to make to this debate, but I do want to frame a few questions for the Minister of Justice as one particularly interested in this legislation. I wish to refer him to an introduction that he wrote several years ago to a book called "Freedom Wears a Crown", by John Farthing. To be more explicit, I am very much interested that he should have a part-I assume he has a part and is in essence helping to sponsor the bill -in something that gives no recognition to the great theme of this book of which he approved in such forthright terms in the introduction. If I read several paragraphs I think I will make my point. I assume that the E. D. Fulton mentioned here is the minister, and in the introduction on page 16 I find this paragraph:
The second thesis is that in Canada we chose, as our political system, the crown in parliament, with its ideal of individual liberty guaranteed by the written and unwritten laws governing the relationship of the three constituent elements, crown, cabinet and commons. The choice of that constitutional system was a free and deliberate decision made by Canadians and accepted equally by the two main elements of the population of Canada.
The minister, before he was a minister, went on to approve to a great extent of the general theme presented by Mr. Farthing, and I wish to read several paragraphs from the book. I should like the minister's comment thereon in relation to the measure now before us. On page 142 there is the following:
Our constitutional inheritance was the living product of a long process of historical growth and development, and the tradition it embodied is of an order already proven of value in dealing vith changing conditions of life and with changing climates of opinion. Such an order and such a tradition are not things that must of necessity be cast aside because the world has changed since the days of Queen Victoria. The British constitution was not the product of the Victorian age, and the British tradition is in no way bound to or fettered by any historical epoch. Indeed that is the essential point of contrast as it is also the essential glory of the British tradition as compared with the American. Their constitution binds the Americans to the ideas and mental climate of the

eighteenth century. They are tied, as it were, and for all time, to the apron strings of George Washington.
We are not so tied. On the contrary, we inherit an ever-living historical tradition; ever-living precisely because it is historical; because in every successive age it has been drawing sustaining life from established roots and giving new strength to that life by drawing new food from new sources. It has been and remains a truly creative power, not carried about by every wind that blows, but meeting the present always in the firm assurance of the past with the resources of wisdom and of strength that can only be found in such an assurance, and in such a source.
Mr. Chairman, the Prime Minister on various occasions, and the Secretary of State for External Affairs the other day, indicated in reply to questions by the hon. member for Assiniboia the deep interest and devotion of the members of the government to the British tradition and the crown, and the great respect they have for the mother of parliaments. I am not arguing that there should have been included in this bill any reference to the crown and the British tradition, but I do think we deserve an explanation from the minister or someone on the government side as to their reason for not including some reference to what I think is the most important part of our tradition. The minister was so forthright in his reference to the crown in parliament and the constitution as something that is above and beyond the government, the emphasis being upon the system rather than upon the members of the government-


Edmund Davie Fulton: Would the hon. member like an answer to that now? I can give it to him in a few words.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I shall complete my remarks very shortly. I have looked through the bill as amended, and I can see no touchstone-and I thought we might find one-in the preamble to the British parliamentary tradition. I am speaking personally, and not in a party sense. One of my great regrets is that we teach so little British history in this country, which could be a part of our tradition.
I should like some explanation from the government as to why this measure, which the government regards as of such fundamental importance, does not contain at least some recognition of that particular part of our tradition. I know it was argued, as I remember, by Mr. Garson, the minister of justice in the previous administration, that one of the reasons we did not need a bill of rights in this country was that we were within this mainstream of the British tradition, so it had not been found necessary to enunciate it. Obviously this government does not believe that Mr. Garson had the right approach.
However, the view is widely held by many people in Canada, I would not say the
Human Rights
majority, that one of the great guarantees of our liberties is the crown in parliament and the British tradition. I should like an explanation as to why this does not seem to have found recognition in this particular document. Wherever we turn in Canadian life we find references to such things as the Crown Assets Disposal Corporation. The minister said he was proud to get up and speak as a representative in parliament of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. The Prime Minister is creating such things as royal commissions. A great deal of our language, in so far as parliamentary terms in concerned, and a great many of our procedures go back to this tradition, and I am wondering if those words are going to become completely meaningless unless they find some recognition in this bill.
I realize that I have perhaps given too much detail and obscured my point, but I am asking from an individual rather than from a party point of view as to why there was not a recognition within this document itself of that particular point of view, especially in the light of what I have always taken to be a part of the tradition of the Progressive Conservative party.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I think this point deserves an answer at once, Mr. Chairman. I should like to say to the hon. gentleman that there is, in my view, no inconsistency between this bill and the views I expressed in the foreword of the book to which he was kind enough to refer or the views expressed in the book itself by the late Mr. Farthing. Explicit in those passages was the view that the Canadian tradition, coming down from the British tradition in this field, is a parliamentary tradition. Parliament means the crown in parliament, our parliament depending for its life, its living force, upon the necessary presence of three elements, including the crown. Well, that most certainly is embodied in this statute. It is embodied in the phrase, "Therefore Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows".
I suggest this seriously to my hon. friend. I am not trying to minimize his point by referring to this as a small thing, it is a very important tradition, and this expression which appears in every Canadian statute embodies that tradition. It is correct to speak about the crown in parliament for it is the crown, by and with the consent of the Senate and the House of Commons, that enacts the statutes under which the Canadian people live. That is parliament. You will observe that we have started the preamble in this way:
The parliament of Canada, affirming that the Canadian nation is founded upon principles that acknowledge-

Human Rights
Affirming also that men and institutions remain free-
And being desirous of enshrining these principles-
-in a statute, and then we say-
Therefore Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:
That is parliament acting, and it is the crown in parliament, so it is complete. It flows from that very tradition and recognizes the living authority of the tradition which was discussed in that book.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I acknowledge this, and I noted that particular part in the preamble. However, this part is in the preamble of every statute we enact. It is the argument of the government that this bill is of fundamental importance. We have this preamble in response to what I and many other members requested, something that would be a ringing declaration which could be used in the schools. While I can agree that this preamble is much more worth-while than what we had before, still there is no reference within the preamble either to the crown or to the British tradition. I just wondered why it was not thought proper to put it in.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I think I can give the answer. The bill of rights is not concerned with a definition of the elements of the constitution, of the elements of parliament itself. It is concerned with a declaration of the rights of the people of Canada. It is because the constitutional tradition is a tradition within this parliament which enacts the bill that it is not necessary to define that tradition in terms of saying what is the constitution defining the elements of the parliament that is enacting this bill. We know that because that is part of our tradition. If at any time we have to look it up we go to the British North America Act which is, in itself, the basic document of the Canadian constitution. We find there a definition of our constitution. We find there the passage I had in mind in that portion of the foreword to which reference was made, namely:
Whereas the provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick have expressed their desire to be federally united into one dominion under the crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, with a constitution similar in principle to that of the United Kingdom:
We find, therefore, within the British North America Act itself an outline of what constitutes our parliament, the House of Commons and the Senate, and it is a parliament with the crown; that is our constitution and that is our parliament. It did not seem to us

proper or necessary to define our constitution in a bill of rights, which is a bill enacted by parliament and concerned with a declaration of the rights of individuals in Canada.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Would the minister agree that this clause affirms that the Canadian nation is founded upon principles, and then the preamble goes on; and would the minister not agree that those principles are, in the main, inherent in the British parliamentary traditions?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes, I think that is true, too, but their traditions recognize these principles. But here the land of principles we are talking about are principles that primarily relate to and give foundation for and validity to the rights and liberties of the individual. We are concerned with a bill of rights here rather than a definition of constitutional principles.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, as a member of this committee I wish to make a few general remarks. I would, however, like to say to the Minister of Justice who has been active in the prosecution of this measure that when we come to the various clauses I am sure he will expect a more detailed discussion than is possible at this juncture.
I would like to join with my colleagues on the committee in expressing a word of thanks to the chairman, my fellow townsman, for his direction of our work, and to all members of the committee regardless of their political interest for the serious and responsible attention that they gave to the deliberations of the committee, which came unfortunately toward the end of the session, and involved 25 meetings in little less than three weeks, thereby imposing on all of the members of that committee a task which was by no means easy to accept.
I believe we now have before the house a bill in an improved form, a bill that has undergone substantial modification, considerable tightening up and, generally speaking, within the limits available to us, a much more effective document.
During the course of the committee's proceedings the Minister of Justice paid a tribute to Mr. Driedger who, he said, had formulated most of the terms of the bill before us, when we were on second reading. I think it is only right, when tributes are being paid, to acknowledge the author of the bill that was before the house on second reading.
We had before us during the 25 sittings of our committee some distinguished jurists, historians and constitutional authorities. We

in the Liberal party, who as the hon. member for Charlotte so generously said took our responsibilities seriously, were I think able to suggest most of the individual people, apart from organizations, who came before the committee. We are grateful and indebted, therefore, to Professors Scott, Bowker, Cohen, Lang, Lower and Wright, and Mr. David Mundell.
I regret very much that Mr. Carter, who had strong views about the concept of a bill of rights itself, was not able to participate in our discussions, although he wrote a letter available for all to read. I regret, too that Professor Bora Laskin, who must be recognized as one of the foremost authorities on constitutional law and practice in our country, was not available; and I regret of course that Mr. Louis-Philippe Pigeon of Laval University who communicated vicariously with the hon. member for Bellechasse did not appear before the committee because his views with regard to those parts of the bill that touch on provincial powers were very important in our considerations. They had much to do with the acknowledged limitation of the federal government in this field, and as now stated in the preamble of the bill.
We did our best to propose further modifications to the bill, which were not recognized by the majority of the members of the committee or by the Minister of Justice. I believe that time will show those amendments which were not accepted would have considerably improved the scope of the bill and would have been in keeping with the evolutionary character of the conception of rights which, in a growing society, from one period to another, will become more and more apparent as time goes on. Thus we have learned in the twentieth century that rights and duties, while they may continue to be in some measure the same, nevertheless have expanded through new concepts which have given rise to new rights and corresponding duties.
The Leader of the Opposition last night mentioned that we now have in the bill a preamble. He observed that when the suggestion was first made on second reading it was ridiculed by the Minister of Justice.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, that is not correct. What I was talking about was poetic language. No specific objection was taken to a preamble.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I would regard the characterization of a preamble as poetic language to be the kind of ridicule one would expect from a man whose brilliance we must recognize in the person of the Minister of Justice. Brilliant men have their method of
Human Rights
deriding something that is good. I regard this particular form of derision, cynicism or satire as a criticism of the suggestion for a preamble.
In any event we now have a preamble, and I must say that we are grateful to the minister and his officers who acted as a sort of co-ordinator for the various suggestions of preambles which were made by different members of the committee, among them the hon. member for Fort William, the hon. member for Bellechasse, the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort, and several other hon. members. I had the honour of proposing one myself. But I believe that the preamble now in the bill, not fully satisfactory as we shall indicate when we get into the more detailed discussion stage, is perhaps one of the satisfactory features of the bill in that it does enable a greater appreciation of the implications of this bill of rights, short as it is of being a national bill and not completely satisfactory in terms of the effect which flows from the attempt to give it the power of a legal enactment.
Nevertheless the preamble is something which I believe deserves emphasis, because it incorporates three concepts which were not fully present, or in two particulars, not present at all, in the bill as originally presented.
First of all, there is stated in the bill that the Canadian nation is founded on principles which acknowledge the supremacy of God. I am happy to say as a member of the committee that every member readily supported the idea that in a document of this kind in Canada there should be an acknowledgment of the religious character of this country and of the recognition that Canadians, generally speaking, accord to God himself.
I thought that the observations of the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort in stating his views in this particular were impressive and will for a long time remain with me. He said, as I indeed had previously indicated in the committee, that we were divided between two main ideologies so-called, the one based on dialectical materialism, and recognition or belief in the supremacy of man, the other based on spiritual and moral values, which take their form in a belief in the supremacy of God. In a document of this kind there should be no hesitation on the part of nations like our own in affirming this fact. I believe it is well that we should have taken this decision. I think it is a decision which was taken, not with any political consideration in mind but as one subscribed to by all those members present on the committee representing all the political parties.

Human Rights
Then there is the recognition of a suggestion which was made by this particular party, that there should be reposed in the preamble an acknowledgment that the Canadian family is an essential constituent of our society. I must say in all fairness to the hon. member for Bellechasse, that he had distributed a preamble, which had not been put forward officially but in which he did recognize the importance of the Canadian family as the basis of a society of free men and institutions.
Because many of us on the committee and because many of the constitutional experts outside were concerned about the fact that clause 2 of the bill did seem to touch provincial powers, or at any rate was so worded as to create doubt in the minds of those who were disposed to examine the proposition, we did suggest that either in the preamble or in some other clause in the bill words should be included which would clearly establish that this bill was not intended to touch upon, and that it did not in fact touch upon, any powers which did not come within section 91 of the British North America Act or which did not come within the powers of the federal parliament. I am not fully satisfied, as I have privately indicated to the Minister of Justice, that in the English version of the text we have completely made this clear, but I am satisfied that in the French text we have succeeded in doing so. The French text at this point reads:
(Translation):
-which shall reflect the respect of parliament for the provisions of its constitutional authority.
(Text):
It seems to me that when we come to examine the preamble, we shall have to use words of strength in order to meet the point of view we have in mind. There have been suggestions we should use the words "within its legislative competence" and that certainly would have been satisfactory to me.
May I, even at the expense of being accused of false pride, join with my colleague the hon. member for Fort William and put on the record of this house my own thought as to what should have been in the preamble by reading the very words that I proposed. These were:
Before God, the Canadian people, united for the common pursuit of their well-being, composed of persons of various races and religions from many nations; intent on preserving the dignity of the individual in his rights and freedoms, which have been secured through the institution of parliament and the law, desire to reaffirm their faith in these human rights and fundamental freedoms.
Having joined with other nations and their peoples in the universal declaration of human rights, the people of Canada rededicate themselves to the principles of that charter in its human,

social, political, economic and legal terms, particularly those concerning the sanctity and inviolability of the family as the fundamental unit of society, the right of the individual to participate in government and to earn a living for himself and his family.
The Canadian people, therefore, believe that it is meet and proper that, for the better understanding of all, the parliament of Canada declare before man and God, on behalf of the nation, those human rights, fundamental freedoms, and objects of national purpose that are within its competence so to do.
In any event, I was among those whose text was not fully accepted, but it will be recognized, as in the case of most other suggestions, that the composite arrangement put forward by the Minister of Justice through the efforts of the law offices officers does meet the chief objectives we had in mind.
I simply want to say it would possibly be a waste of time to try to add up the suggestions which were made by this party or by that, but it is significant that the members of this party, like the members of the Conservative party, did in their individual capacities make valuable suggestions. I can hardly agree with the member of the committee, who has just spoken that the extent of our contribution was to be measured merely by five different acceptances. When we get into more detailed discussion, I think it will be possible to show that the extent of the contribution made by those in this party was much greater and amounted to more numerically than the hon. member seemed to accept.
It is significant that in clause 2(f) of the bill before us the amendment dealing with the legal right of the presumption of innocence and the matter of granting reasonable bail to an accused were accepted in principle by the committee, and are now incorporated in the bill. The anti-discrimination clause has been strengthened as a result of suggestions put forward as an amendment by members of this party. I mention this not because I wish to discriminate against members of the Conservative party-that is not my intention -but to indicate that the contribution of the members of this party was, as the hon. member for Charlotte so generously pointed out, a valuable one.
We are particularly reminded of the contribution made by the hon. member for Van-couver-Kingsway, who I think more than any other member was responsible for extricating the minister from what I would call at least an intellectual dilemma, if not a dilemma of another kind, because of the words "torture, cruel and degrading punishment" which he had in the old clause 2(b). So there were contributions made by many hon. members, which have resulted in a considerable improvement in this document.

I listened with great interest to what the hon. member for Bellechasse had to say in his able speech earlier today.
(Translation):
The hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Dorion) related the question of provincial civil rights with that of family rights. There is not the slightest doubt that, if this bill were to encroach upon family rights within the province, it would be ultra vires, or beyond the jurisdiction of the federal government.
However the member for Bellechasse himself recognized, and still admits today, that the effect of the bill is limited' to the legislative jurisdiction of the parliament of Canada.
Therefore, it is only within the legislative jurisdiction of the parliament of Canada that we want to affirm the rights and the protection of the rights of the Canadian family.
The member for Bellechasse has always voted in favour of the social security measures which constitute the correlative rights of the Canadian family.
We want those rights protected by the bill of rights. May I point out too that his previous leaders were not always in favour of those measures, for instance, the one respecting family allowances.
We are thinking of the future, and we want to make those family rights as inviolable as possible.
The stand taken by the Quebec premier during the federal provincial conference was not inconsistent with that taken by his party in the Quebec legislature on February 3, 1960.
It will be remembered that in February, 1960, the Quebec legislature took a look at the bill of rights, which was given its first reading on June 27. Now in that bill there was no reference to the legislative limitation of the parliament of Canada.
On July 1, the Prime Minister clearly indicated in his statement that the scope of this bill was limited to the legislative jurisdiction of the parliament of Canada. Later on, we succeeded in having a preamble added which clearly sets forth the legislative limits beyond which the Canadian parliament may not go.
Under the circumstances the doubts expressed by the Quebec legislature as to constitutionality were justified. The preamble, however, does away with any constitutional uncertainties.
I think that the member for Bellechasse accepts my interpretation of the subject he has dealt with.
(Text):
While this bill is not all that we would like it to be and while I should like to see
Human Rights
a national bill and one entrenched in the constitution, nevertheless there was never any suggestion by anyone in this party or for that matter in the committee that this bill should be delayed at this time. The only suggestion-and that was in the form of a motion-was that while the federal-provincial fiscal conference was under way, we might wait until the deliberations of the conferees had been settled before proceeding. That would not have taken us beyond the Friday of the week in which the conference took place.
I feel that a bill of rights that is not part of the constitution is not satisfactory. To the extent that this bill goes, it is welcome, but it must be recognized that in its present form in law it will be subject to the rule of interpretation, which I think we will all recognize, and that general statements-and that is what we have in this bill at the present time-must give way to existing specific statutes whether or not they are inconsistent with this bill.
Because I believe that the present bill, consisting as it does of a valuable declaration, adds nothing to our fundamental law-it does not alter it, but generally speaking, it does not add anything to our fundamental law-and because of its general terms it could not be regarded as having legal effect in itself, I believe-and this is the substance of most of the evidence before the committee-of amending any existing statutes which might be regarded as inconsistent with this bill of rights.
I am sure that this general declaration, valuable as it is, will go no further than the courts have already gone in their decisions. What are required in this bill, it seems to me, and what I hope we will consider at some stage of our deliberations, are ways and means of clearly establishing by enactment that all bills inconsistent with this measure are in fact repealed hereby.
I have on the order paper a bill the purpose of which is to amend the Expropriation Act. I hope that we can deal with this bill before we rise and prorogue, because as long as that measure is on the statute books in its present form and as long as its provisions continue to be the law, there will be involved, as the very reading of this proposed amendment indicates, a violation of human rights not by one individual against another but by the crown against the Canadian citizen.
There are other acts which are inconsistent with this bill. They will continue to be the law of the land unless this bill is so modified as to make clear the intention of parliament, that notwithstanding what

Human Rights
they may now contain all such acts are to the extent of their inconsistency abrogated by this measure.
We cannot say we are fully satisfied with the bill in all of its particulars, subject to the amending modifications that I have indicated we will deal with later. There is, of course, the point made by the Leader of the Opposition, that is that the War Measures Act needs a liberalization that may take it to a closer relationship to the guarantees provided for by way of declaration in this bill of rights. It is no answer to say this is not a matter we can discuss, because the government itself in this very measure has already provided for a repeal of some of its provisions. It is no answer to say we will look at this question as a whole in another session. Now is the time when all these matters are incorporated in the same document for us to deal with them so as to reduce to the lowest possible minimum those violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms which we seek to protect in this bill.
There is a whole range of other rights that must be recognized in the kind of society we have at the present time, a society different from that of our fathers and different from that of the liberal-minded men who acted as precursors of the liberal emancipations in earlier centuries. We have an opportunity now, which we must seize while this bill is being discussed in this chamber to give effect to these new concepts and new obligations, referred to by implication in some respects in the preamble of the bill.
This bill is acceptable. It is welcome to the extent that it goes. We are happy to have contributed to an improvement in the quality and in the form of this bill. I think that all hon. members who served on the committee regardless of party and notwithstanding what may have been the misinterpretations of motive and purpose in the early days of our sitting would agree that we, delegated by this house, fulfilled our responsibility as well as we knew how. We have produced a document which, because of limitations not capable of correction by us, is not all that we would like it to be but nevertheless is now in a much more presentable form than it was when it left this chamber after second reading.
I conclude with this. It seems to me this bill will rely for its strength, not on the letter of the law, which is sought to be expressed, not in the decisions of our courts, which will ultimately be given,-and there will be much judicial law making because of the uncertainties and ambiguities, because of the doubtful powers, here and there, which have been pointed out by the hon. member for Charlotte-the raison d'etre of this bill will be found largely in the disposition and

in the attitude that Canadians take one toward another. Through tolerance and generous appreciation of the rights of one's neighbour, we in this Canadian nation will be able to see grow and strengthen the advantages of liberty and freedom.
I should like to conclude what I have to say by saying the tolerance and the unity that we look for in Canada which is basic in this bill was expressed by Sir Wilfrid Laurier more eloquently than anyone that I know when, speaking to a group of students during the days when he was one of the great statesmen of our country, he said this:
Three years ago, when in England, X visited one of those models of Gothic architecture, which the hand of genius, guided by an unerring faith had moulded into an harmonious whole. That cathedral is made of marble, oak and granite. It is the image of the nation I would like to see Canada become. Here, I want the marble to remain the marble; the oak, the oak; the granite, the granite. Out of these elements, I would build a nation great among the nations of the world.


Mr, Diefenbaker:: Mr. Chairman, I shall not traverse the ground which I covered on previous occasions; indeed, my remarks today will be limited by the fact that on many previous occasions I have dealt at length with this matter. I would be less than frank, Mr. Chairman, if I were not to say to you how much I feel the discussions that have taken place in the last 14 years as to the need of a bill of rights in Canada have borne fruit. This is evidenced by the views now expressed by the hon. member for Essex East who, with commendable eloquence, paid his tribute to the need of a bill of rights in Canada although still continuing to hold the view expressed by others in the opposition and elsewhere that before a bill of rights can become finally effective in a national sense a constitutional amendment will be required.
I intend to take but a few moments to refer to the great transition that has taken place, for all during those years from 1946 to 1957 there was never at any time any support from those who then occupied the treasury benches of this country, although in the Liberal party support did come from two hon. members, both of whom are today in the Senate of Canada, namely Senator Roebuck and Senator Croll, as well as from Alistair Stewart, a former member of this house, and Mr. M. J. Coldwell, the leader of the C.C.F. party. I say this not by way of criticism, but it indicates how in the passage of time reformation does take place. From the attitude of the treasury benches of this country in the days of 1946 to 1957 we have now passed to the position where hon. gentlemen such as the hon. member for Essex East now give to a bill of rights support which in past years they did not accord to it.

In this connection, I think I might read the words of the hon. member as recorded in Hansard of May 7, 1946, at page 1311. These words, marked by eloquence, were clearly and sincerely the views of the hon. gentleman in those days; indeed, they represented the views of all hon. members who occupied the treasury benches of this country at that time. This is what the hon. gentleman said:
A land of settled government,
A land of just and old renown,
Where freedom slowly broadens down
From precedent to precedent.
That is the character of our system, the system I had in mind in using the words that appear in section 26 of the bill.
That was the Canadian Citizenship Act.
That is the system which says it is not possible at any given moment to cover the whole ambit of future civil liberties, or even those liberties as they exist at the moment, in such a way that we may not lose any of their implications or endanger possible future important liberties. The best way to deal with them is the way they have been dealt with in our legal system within the commonwealth, by recognizing that these great unwritten powers are as effective in the implicit understandings of the law, rather than being set down categorically in the form of a completely written constitution. But the methods of protection of the individual under our system, based upon British constitutional tradition, are of a different order. The protection under our system depends upon two things: first, the guarantees provided by the common law and set forth in part in Magna Charta and the Bill of Rights: and second, the fundamental democratic tradition and the British operation of parliament itself. Those are the guarantees relied upon in our system which the government believes to be the best way of guaranteeing the rights and freedom of the subject: for the fact is that while France, the United States and other countries have embedded in their constitutions specific bills of rights, I do not think we, as countries within the commonwealth, need take second place to any country in the world in the protection that historically and indeed currently is afforded to the subject.
Then he went on to say:
These have proved-
Those are the guarantees he had referred to.
-to be the most lasting and effective guarantees of human liberty the world has ever known, and I do not think we would or could gain anything by changing this basis unless we wish to swing over completely to guarantees through organic legislation of the type relied upon by other countries.
Those were the views in 1946. Those views were not restricted to the hon. member but were held quite widely. But with the passing of the years and the educative process that has proceeded whereby year by year this question was brought before parliament by various members to whom I have already referred, today we find ourselves in agreement. Indeed, we now find ourselves in the position that those who opposed now support, those who minimized now say that the present bill does not go far enough, those who
Human Rights
trod upon the suggestion that something of this kind was necessary now embrace it. Yes, it might even be said, Mr. Chairman, that the stone which so many of them rejected has become the cornerstone of their present beliefs. That is laudable. It represents the operation of the parliamentary principle.
I cannot tell you, Mr. Chairman, how pleased I am at the degree to which those principles which we have advocated throughout the years have now become the generally accepted view of the House of Commons. I think that is all to the good. I think that today, as the hon. member for Essex East said in picturing the world in which we live in the cogent and powerful words he used, we in the free world must set forth declarations of those things for which we stand and in which we believe. Communism is aggressive, communism has a philosophy, and the communist knows how to use that aggressive philosophy.
Indeed one of the results of the trip I took to commonwealth countries some years ago was this. As I visited the commonwealth countries in Asia I had propounded to me everywhere the questions, what does democracy stand for, what is its meaning? We have not explained to the world yet in understandable terms, simple, direct and effective, what the meaning of freedom is to us. To a large extent the interpretation of freedom throughout the world has been left to the communists to define and to outline. Indeed its definition has become almost the exclusive monopoly of those who do not believe in freedom.
I was persuaded, and I still am, that there is a compelling need for the western world to restate and redefine its principles, its ideals, and purposes, to the end that the world may understand. Everywhere today that interpretation is based on what the communists, aggressively operating to enthrall and control the hearts of men, define it to be. Indeed, as far as free enterprise is concerned, a principle upon which our country stands, the definition in the back areas of countries within the commonwealth is the definition of the action of the moneylenders who two or three generations ago made an advance to an ancestor of a person now living there and that person still bears the responsibility of repaying a debt which ought to have been long since discharged by death. In other words, we need something to define the things in which we believe.
The reason that the United States did not have a bill of rights in its declaration of independence was simply that it was not believed to be necessary and yet when the declaration of independence came before the several legislatures of the 13 colonies one after the other they demanded that the

Human Rights
rights going back to the days ol the Mayflower declaration must be embodied within the constitution of the United States. Today we find that some 20 or more countries, believing in freedom as they do, have found it necessary to have a bill of rights. Ireland is an example; India is an example, and so I might proceed. So, sir, through the crucible of discussion we achieve something tangible.
Let me say a word regarding the special committee. I believe that more and more; if parliament is to discharge its responsibilities, we must give to committees for discussion matters such as the one which was given to this committee. The hon. member for Essex East has pointed out how effectively and how diligently the committee operated, how out of a community of counsel have been brought about changes which I would be the first to admit are beneficial. That is why the bill was submitted to a committee, and as long as I am in this position, when committees are set up as I hope they will continue to be, it is my desire in the interests of sound parliamentary government that those committees shall operate untrammelled and uncontrolled and produce to the extent possible, having regard to divergencies in membership of such committees and the difference of viewpoint, the best and most effective conclusions of which they are capable.
This committee did so. I have read all the evidence and I commend it to the members of this committee. It was a striking committee made up of members of so many different racial origins. I was impressed this morning by the words of the hon. member for Humber-St. George's when he referred to himself as a new Canadian and having the feeling that those who came here from other lands or their forebears had toward freedom and what it means. Now he is in a different position. Newfoundland has had that freedom for several hundred years but as he spoke this morning one could not but be touched by his feeling that there was that unity of purpose in the committee, irrespective of race and creed, which brought about the improvements and changes, and while the basic essence of a bill of rights has in no way been changed the bill now comes before us in a form which, as the result of the contributions of so many, certainly epitomizes the purpose and aim of a bill of rights. I will go further and say that there has been added to it the effective viewpoint of the group of dedicated members who sat on that committee.
Speaking of the preamble, I may say that almost everyone has tried to draft one. I thought it would be impossible to draft a preamble which would be exclusively related

to those things within the federal jurisdiction. I found it difficult to determine what the wording should be. However, paraphrasing the words of another, my idea of the preamble and what the bill of rights stands for could be summarized in these words:
"On these great truths we stand, and pledge by heart and under law, that God makes all men free in human dignity, whatever their colour, race or creed, to worship and to live, each equal with his neighbour; to speak his mind out clear, without reproach or fear; to tread where heroes for generations have trod, in freedom under God; on these eternal truths we pledge, by heart and under law, to keep these truths true; with all our strength to strive, and keep these truths alive".
This represents, to me, the endeavour that was made by members of this committee. The hon. member who was chairman of the committee, the hon. member for Essex West, went back 14 years to produce my suggestions in those days, and all of them are embodied in the bill of rights today. We are united now in our view that a bill of rights is necessary.
We now come to the question as to whether it is sufficient to have a statute, having regard to the constitutional difficulties which were portrayed this morning by the hon. member for Humber-St. George's. I read the evidence, and I think a summary of it is this: That a bill of rights is necessary, the experience of the past has shown that for the future; second, that as an interim measure this will be a forward step until that day when a constitutional bill of rights will be possible by agreement with the provinces. Third, as Professor Lower has pointed out, nearly every state has made some kind of formal statement of its belief in freedom sooner or later. Professor Cohen stated the need for a restatement of that which is strong in English law. He suggested the strengthening of the provision with respect to discrimination, and I welcome the wording that the committee has brought forth in this connection. He pointed out that a major policy statement on freedom is a good course to follow; that it is creative to have laws against discrimination.
I want to say this to you, Mr. Chairman. Only two years or so ago the council of churches met in Switzerland and came to the conclusion unanimously that there was nothing more beneficial to communism than the failure, anywhere in the free world, to assure equality of opportunity in the use of or in the entry into hotels, restaurants, theatres and the like. In other words, the inscription over some places which we see sometimes in our country "Patronage restricted" gives the most serious thought to those who endeavour to uphold freedom. It is a denial of the principles of freedom and

an encouragement to the communists to point out that, while we, the Christian nations, aver our belief in freedom and the brotherhood of man, we fail to practise it. However, the defence to that kind of situation will not be covered by this bill of rights because it falls within the jurisdiction of the provinces.
Professor Cohen went on to say that it will reintroduce the ideas of natural justice. He pointed out also one matter that has been referred to on a number of occasions, and that is the necessity for action being taken under the War Measures Act while we are in the days of peace, which we hope will never end. This statute went on the law books in 1914 and stayed on the law books during the period between wars. As I said recently when speaking about it. I hope the house at the next session of parliament will agree to set up a committee for the purpose of studying its principles and removing from it those features which constitute a denial of the rights of the individual without endangering the security of the state.
Now, sir, on going through the evidence I find that there is a general desire to have a constitutional amendment. I have made it quite clear that when and if, as a result of agreement amongst the provinces, Canada can in Canada amend its own constitution, then 1 would hope that the first step in the amendment of that constitution would be the preservation of our freedoms nationally in a bill of rights effective nationally and with the agreement of the provinces, without in any way interfering with those basic rights which were alluded to today by the hon. member for Bellechasse. There are going to be difficulties. It is not as simple as some say it is going to be. There have been several meetings over the years, and the last was in 1950. It is so easy to say we agree that something should be done, but it is not so easy to determine how to do that something in a manner that will be acceptable to the provinces of Canada. On January 12, 1950 the conference received the report of the committee of the attorneys general, that is the constitutional conference of the federal and provincial governments. The report contained eight resolutions which were recommended to the conference.
First of all, it recommended a grouping of the provisions of the British North America Act under six headings.
(1)	Provisions which concern parliament only. In respect of this group amendment is made and shall be made by an act of the parliament of Canada.
Human Rights
(2)	Provisions which concern the provincial legislatures only. In respect of this group amendment shall be made by an act of the provincial legislatures.
(3) Provisions which concern parliament and one or more but not all of the provincial legislatures. It was recommended that in respect of this group an act of the parliament of Canada and an act of the legislature of each of the provinces affected should be the basis of amendment.
(4) Provisions which concern parliament and all of the provincial legislatures. It was recommended in this regard that amendment should be made by an act of the parliament of Canada and acts of such majority of the legislatures and upon such additional conditions, if any, as may be decided upon. We begin to realize, Mr. Chairman, what the difficulties are when we read this last mentioned provision. There is a large field for discussion contained in those latter words.
(5)	Provisions concerning fundamental rights and the amendment of the amending procedures. In respect of this group it was suggested that provision be made for amendment by an act of the parliament of Canada and acts of the legislatures of all the provinces.
(6)	Provisions that should be repealed. There are a number of provisions in the British North America Act that in the passage of years find themselves in this category. The recommendation was that amendment procedure might be initiated by one or more of the provincial legislatures or by the parliament of Canada.
On the basis of the recommendations of the committee of attorneys general in 1950 the difficulties are underlined and most apparent. However, I must say that I was encouraged by the attitude expressed by a number of the premiers there. I recall very well that in 1946 Mr. Lesage, a member of parliament at that time, did not view with favour a bill of rights and made his contribution at the time. However, with the changing events of the years-after all, that is the basis of all progress-we now find him in the position of advancing the idea that we may have a national bill of rights. And I repeat that that viewpoint of today has to be commended.
Mr. Chairman, I think I have covered the various matters which have been dealt with here. I am not going to repeat any of the discussions of the past except those which become absolutely necessary. I simply say that this attitude of mine is not the result of the prodding by any of the provinces. It is the culmination of a national demand

Human Rights
which in consequence of changing public opinion through the years now places various legislators in our country in a position where in keeping with the views of today they have discarded the views of yesterday.
I will say no more excepting once more to say of this committee that great responsibilities were placed on its membership. They, in keeping with the finest traditions of parliament, entered into the spirit of discharging that heavy responsibility and have brought back to us the result of their thinking, based on the evidence before them and their own viewpoint, without in any way changing the essence of the bill of rights which was placed in their trust for further consideration.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, some of the witnesses before the committee made the point that there should be some inclusion in this legislation of economic rights, and I would think that clause 1 is an appropriate place to enunciate such economic rights. It seems to me that there should be stated in a bill of rights that an individual has the right of employment.
It may be said that it is difficult to enforce economic rights, that it is difficult to make provision for them. Nevertheless, as our society develops, I think it becomes more and more clear that it is essential that we set forth certain basic economic rights for our citizens. I think that would include the right of employment, the right to have a job if one is willing to work. That kind of a right is not available to Canadians at this time.


Mr. Lambert:: Does this include the right to work, and under what conditions?


Hazen Robert Argue: I was just about to come to that. The hon. member can argue that point, but before the committee an endeavour was made at various times to have clauses amended in order to set forth certain basic rights. I think the hon. member's observation has a particular connotation and what I have in mind is the right of an individual to a job, an opportunity to work if he wishes to.
This whole measure is one which sets forth certain principles, and we hope those principles will be applied in a fair manner in the future. But they should not be confined, in our opinion, to merely the general rights set forth in this measure. Therefore I would like to move:
That clause 1 of the bill be amended by adding after the word "liberty" in line 1 of subparagraph (a) the following words "employment at a fair and equitable remuneration".

The purpose of this amendment would be to place in the bill of rights the declaration that Canadians should have the right to employment at fair and equal remuneration, that there should be no discrimination attached to remuneration and that remuneration from employment should be at fair rates.
The government is going to argue against this proposal. We would expect them to do that. I expect that this kind of proposal will meet with great resistance, but I am just as convinced that though it may receive opposition today, in the years to come we shall place in a bill of rights of this country certain basic economic freedoms. The way to bring that day nearer is to start now promoting certain basic concepts of economic rights and therefore it is my pleasure to move this amendment.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I rise primarily for direction. I thought we were still on the general discussion. Maybe we still are.


An hon. Member:: On clause 1.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, but there is usually a general discussion on clause 1. I may tell the hon. member for Assiniboia right away that I fully support this amendment though I believe it does not come in the proper place. But the first thing, Mr. Chairman, is whether we are still on the general discussion and if so whether on the general discussion it is open to us to propose amendments.


Hazen Robert Argue: Oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. member says "oh". I wish it were as easy as that.


Jacques Flynn: I understand the practice has been to permit general discussion on clause 1 but I do not think the practice has been to make a complete distinction between having a general discussion and moving amendments if hon. members wish to move amendments. Once an amendment has been moved I think discussion should be confirmed to that amendment until the matter has been disposed of but, afterward, other general remarks can be made.


Paul Joseph James Martin: In other words, Mr. Chairman, you are saying that your interpretation of our procedure is that while we are on the general discussion it is open to an hon. member to move an amendment to a particular clause, providing that there may be more general discussion later if hon. members wish. I do not object to that. I just wanted to understand the situation clearly. I had always understood that at this point there was a general discussion, and that when that general discussion was over the

chairman so indicated. Then we would be ready to consider the clauses as such. But I have no objection to this procedure.


Hazen Robert Argue: Then why this intervention?


Paul Joseph James Martin: You will see. We have some views about the inadequacy of clause 2. We wanted to do it now but we-


Hazen Robert Argue: But we were first.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. member says he was first. If he was a member of the committee he did not attend many of the meetings of that committee. As the hon. member for Charlotte pointed out, the amendments introduced by the Liberal party on this and other social points were in advance of his own. Perhaps the hon. member was not aware of that, or perhaps he became aware of it after he had read the evidence of the committee.


Hazen Robert Argue: Do not be so tender.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am not being tender. I am being forthright.
I am commenting, now, on the amendment and I am indicating that we support this particular amendment though I suggest there is a more appropriate place for it in a subsequent clause as I shall indicate later on. But I want the members of the committee to know, as I said in my statement in chief, and as the Leader of the Opposition indicated, that when we are talking about human rights and fundamental freedoms we must take into account the character of our times. The basic human rights and fundamental freedoms which are generally referred to as absolutes in clause 1 of the bill are that kind of rights and freedoms which have been recognized for centuries and incorporated in charters of rights and notably emphasized in legislation in the nineteenth century.
But we in this party, as the Leader of the Opposition has pointed out, recognize that political liberty, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, valuable and essential though they are, are only part of the kind of concepts in the field of human rights that must now be recognized. I would think, as Franklin Roosevelt said, as Mackenzie King said, and as the Leader of the Opposition has so often said, that in this twentieth century when we have subscribed to the declaration on human rights, as this country did in 1948, along with some 80 nations, and when that declaration deals not only with political and legal liberties but, as well, with social and economic objectives, there is no reason why in a bill of rights when we are declaring what those rights are, we should not deal with matters that touch the economic and social welfare of the mass of the people of this country.
Human Rights


John George Diefenbaker: May I ask the hon. member a question? He has mentioned the declaration of human rights, the international declaration of 1948. Why was that never submitted to parliament? Was not the explanation given that it contained reference to economic rights which were within the jurisdiction of the provinces? Was that not the answer?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Prime Minister, I am sure, does not intend to create a red herring-


John George Diefenbaker: No, I am just asking a question.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am saying that in asking that question I am sure the Prime Minister does not wish to introduce a red herring into this discussion. The fact is that the declaration on human rights, the subject of discussion in the United Nations for almost ten years, was a result of contributions made by many people, and in Canada the Canadian contribution was made under the direction and under the policy of the Leader of the Opposition who happened at that time to be in charge of matters having to do with external policy, including the United Nations. But since the right hon. gentleman has asked me a question, let me ask him one in this context.


John George Diefenbaker: After you have answered mine.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have answered your question.


An hon. Member:: Oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: There was nothing to prevent the right hon. gentleman rising in his place at any time during the period when he was so feverish about these rights and making a motion-a supply motion-or resorting to any of the procedures which are open to ingenious members of parliament, than whom there are few more ingenious than the right hon. gentleman. But advantage was not taken of that. My own comment is not valuable, but perhaps neither comment is valuable, though the Prime Minister put forward the most invaluable comment. But I am sure the Prime Minister cannot fail to recognize the value of the concept employed in this particular method.
It may be said that equitable remuneration is a matter which involves property and civil rights. That cannot be sensibly argued, because we clearly envisage in this bill that we shall only touch those matters which come within the competence of the federal parliament, though we do not use that precise language. But there is no reason why we cannot have minimum wage legislation in the

Human Rights
federal parliament. The Prime Minister looks at me with wonderment. I repeat that there is no reason why we in the federal parliament cannot provide a basic minimum wage for those people who work in those areas that come within the competence of the federal parliament. That is what I said and it is not something that should occasion the surprise which the Prime Minister manifests.
We support this particular amendment. We suggest it has been put in the wrong section but to give an indication of our intention I make this declaration now. I would ask hon. members to consider the initiative taken by the hon. member for Fort William, the initiative taken by the hon. member for Humber -St. George's, the initiative taken by the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont, and if I may refer to it the initiative taken by the modest and quiet hon. member for Essex East.


Mr. Howard:: Mr. Chairman, I am surprised at the remarks of the hon. member for Essex East in his complaint that it was not proper to move an amendment on clause 1 at this time when he thought a general discussion was still in progress. For the sake of comparison let me point out to him that during the extensive discussion on clause 1 of the combines bill one of the hon. member's colleagues, the hon. member for Ottawa West, jumped in and moved an amendment just as was done now. For the sake of consistency the hon. gentleman should not complain in this instance as was indicated by the hon. member for Assiniboia.
During the course of the remarks of the hon. member for Assiniboia some hon. members raised questions by way of interjection. I may not be correct in my conclusion and if I am not I should like to be corrected, but I concluded that when reference was made to the rights of employees hon. gentlemen were thinking in terms of the so-called right to work laws existing in some of the states of the United States and which have been advocated in some reactionary quarters in Canada. I do not know if that is what was in the minds of hon. gentlemen who posed questions.
I believe I would be in order to express my thoughts about how the rights of individual workmen have been abrogated by certain types of union security clauses in collective agreements. I feel I am in order in doing so because of the nature of this clause and the amendment moved thereto. Some of these types of union security clauses abrogate the rights of the individual. As far as provincial jurisdiction is concerned those rights will continue to be abrogated. If the amendment becomes law I do not know what

will be the effect on agreements under federal jurisdiction. Since discussion of the bill of rights has been a lawyer's paradise I would not venture to guess what the effect on these contracts would be although I think it would have some.
There are a number of different union security provisions. In general terms they range from the closed shop which is a system demanding that an individual belong to a union before he is able to gain employment in the industry or firm with which the union has the agreement. The next is the union shop agreement which provides that an employer can hire whoever he wishes but the new employee must become a member of the union within a certain period of time varying with the contract. Next down the scale is the so-called Rand formula developed by Mr. Justice Rand, I believe in the automobile industry strike in 1946 or 1947. In general it indicates that all employees of an employer while they need not join a union in a certain period following the commencement of their employment are nevertheless required to pay an amount equal to union dues. The next in order of desirability on the part of union negotiators is the maintenance of membership principle under which if a man joins a union he must maintain membership in it during the life of the contract. At the bottom of the scale is the so-called open shop arrangement in which there is no provision whatever contained in the collective agreement regarding membership in the union. Under this system we sometimes have voluntary revocable checkoff which is a deduction of union dues which the employer makes and sends to the union.
Some of these types of union security abrogate the rights of the individual and the operation and enforcement of some other types do the same thing. I will enumerate those types and the objection to them I have. I do not think the objectionable ones are beneficial to anyone. Before outlining the reasoning behind why they became part of union-management negotiations may I call it five o'clock. I understand there will be a brief discussion and then we will return to this item of business.


Jacques Flynn: Order. It being five o'clock it is my duty pursuant to section 3 of standing order 15 to leave the chair in order to permit the house to proceed to the consideration of private and public bills.
Progress reported.



PRIVATE BILLS


Mr. R. J. McCleave (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I think it is the agreement of all the parties

that we consider very shortly the bill interrupted a few moments ago. Perhaps the house would bear with me for two and a half minutes on two matters since I do have an interest in an Everestian pile of legislation on my shoulders. The first request I would make of the house is that I be permitted to revert to motions.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. member for Halifax leave to revert to motions?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Kent (Ont.) (Mr. Danforth):
That the order for house again in committee of the whole on Bill No. SD-34, an act for the relief of Helen Frances Estelle Kearney Freeman be discharged and that the said bill be referred back to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills together with the evidence taken and the papers produced in respect of the said bill before the Senate standing committee on divorce and the affidavit of the respondent dated July 31, 1960 submitted to the chairman of the said commons committee on August 2.
May I speak briefly on the motion, perhaps to explain to those members who are curious. The affidavit in the substantive part says that the respondent was living with the petitioner during the period detailed in the evidence.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Robert Jardine McCleave: The second matter I wish to bring up is to make a very short statement to put an end to certain uncertainties that have developed in the handling of divorce cases. It is recommended that anybody who wishes to delve into these cases should bring his or her affidavit or complaint before us not later than mid-afternoon on Friday.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the intention of the house to go into committee of the whole on these divorce bills?


Robert Jardine McCleave: No, Mr. Speaker, I think it is agreeable to all parties that the divorce cases stand adjourned until Friday and we revert to the bill of rights.



CONSOLIDATION OF DIVORCE BILLS IN ONE MOTION

Mr. Speaker:: Before the house reverts to the business which was interrupted at five o'clock, I suggest that items numbered 2 to 7 standing in this section of the order paper be consolidated with the other divorce bills already before the house so as to tidy up the order paper for private bills.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Human Rights


Mr. Speaker:: Then, items numbered 2 to 7, inclusive, will be referred in one motion to the committee of the whole with the divorce bills already before the committee of the whole.
Does the house give unanimous consent to waive the remainder of the hour for private bills?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The house will then revert to the business which was interrupted at five o'clock.



HUMAN RIGHTS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of Bill No. C-79, to provide for the recognition and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms-Mr. Diefen-baker.-Mr. Flynn in the chair.
On clause 1-Recognition and declaration of rights and freedoms.
Charles Benjamin Howard: Mr. Chairman, I desire to look briefly at the historical development of unions and the reasons for these types of union security provisions. I think we will all agree without hesitation that in the early days, before any extensive union organization was even thought of, an employee in many instances could be and in many instances was summarily fired from his employment without reason, but especially if the individual had any interest in or had shown any interest in or took any active part in the organization of any union. Many of the people in the industry who undertook to participate in union organization were in effect blacklisted. I am not too sure whether some of these black lists do not still exist today. A blacklist was a circularization of a man's name among employers, particularly employers in the same industry, that that individual was on the blacklist for union activities. When that took place his possibilities of getting employment anywhere in that industry were practically hopeless. I appreciate, Mr. Chairman, that you are wondering as to the relevancy of this to the amendment but it deals with employment.
I am giving a short background as to how we got union security provisions in the collective agreements and how these might abrogate the rights of certain individuals. Unions, therefore, thought that their members required some protection and came to the conclusion that if they had the right to control the hiring of employees then they

Human Rights
would overcome this blacklisting. Consequently, out of that arose the closed shop. All this did in some instances was to substitute the action of the union to discriminate against the individual for what was formerly the activity of the employer in discriminating against the individual, for this, and other reasons, and, I have absolutely no use for closed shop provisions where the control of hiring is in the hands of a union agent, and where the same sort of discrimination can be practised as was practised before by the employer but for different reasons. This I think is an abrogation of an individual's right to employment.
There are certain other types of union security provisions under which a person's employment is in jeopardy. If he forgos his membership in a union under certain circumstances; under the union shop provision, for argument's sake, the union itself may have the right under its constitution to remove the person's union membership from him for a variety of reasons, some of which may not be very sound; but in the process of removing that individual's union membership they also remove his right to employment if his right to employment is tied to union membership. Under certain circumstances where the union takes the initiative in removing and cancelling a person's membership I do not think it should by subsequent action, in fact, have his employment terminated accordingly.
We in the I.W.A. have a provision which says that anyone who is a member of the communist, fascist or nazi parties may not belong to our union, and that if a person who is such a member does belong to the union and this is subsequently discovered his membership can be cancelled. If this occurs and if, for argument's sake, the union has a provision, which it has a perfect right to have, to restrict membership to people with certain ideas, and they subsequently discover that there is a member in their union who is also a member of the communist party, and if action is taken within the union to cancel his membership, it should not automatically follow that he loses his employment thereby. We have enshrined this provision in our constitutional structure, in the union shop provision, and I had an active participation in it a few years ago, to the point where we indicated that this would not interfere with a person's right to employment, nor do I think it should.
We could get involved, of course, in a number of variations and different applications and that sort of thing, but I thought it would be well to express these views at this time not only because I believe in these

things, as I have said a number of times before, but when the hon. member for Assini-boia moved his amendment and got certain queries from hon. members opposite as to what he was getting at. Without embarking into another field, on the so-called right to work laws, which I have no use for either,
I think they are being misconstrued for something which they are not. I think if unions and management take the approach that I have suggested with respect to that which I have just enunciated in brief form,
I think there will be no reason to advocate so-called right to work laws.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I question the procedure. May we have an understanding? We are on clause 1, and an amendment has been moved to paragraph (a), which has not yet been dealt with. Surely the practice should be to deal with clause 1 first, and then deal with paragraph (a); otherwise, we shall get into a most disorderly procedure. That is why I raised the question. When we are discussing clause 1, if anyone has any comment or any proposal to make that will be the time to make it. I do not object to the amendment; I am trying to establish the order of procedure. If we are to have a detailed discussion all through this bill I think we ought to proceed paragraph by paragraph.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Could the question be put to the committee whether we have concluded the general discussion so that we can proceed with a detailed consideration of the clauses?


Jacques Flynn: There is no strict rule about it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: We do it by agreement.


Jacques Flynn: If the committee wishes to decide to proceed along the lines suggested by the hon. member for Essex East, it is within its power to do so. Does the committee wish to proceed that way, that we decide first that the general discussion is over-


Paul Joseph James Martin: We have decided that now.


Jacques Flynn: -and, second, that we proceed by paragraphs in each clause?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Agreed.


Jacques Flynn: It is agreed that the general discussion is over and that we are now discussing the details of clause 1.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, we are now
on the first paragraph and then we will deal with (a) afterwards.


Hazen Robert Argue: But the amendment is clearly before the committee.


Jacques Flynn: The amendment is clearly before the committee. However, for the sake of order, if we are to proceed as indicated I would suggest that the amendment stand until we get to subparagraph (a) unless there is no comment on the first paragraph of the clause.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, there is. I have a comment to make.


Jacques Flynn: Is it agreeable that the amendment should stand until we have disposed of the first paragraph of clause 1?


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, in discussion of clause 1 I have moved an amendment and the amendment is before the committee. The amendment being before the committee does not preclude the hon. member for Essex East from discussing anything in any part of clause 1, but at some point in the discussion of clause 1 Your Honour will put the question on the amendment. After the question has been put members will decide whether they wish to put further amendments before the committee with respect to this clause. I think we have been proceeding in an orderly manner.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not think we have but I agree that the hon. member's amendment is before the committee. I suggest that we deal with it, then come back to the first paragraph, then deal with subparagraph (a), and proceed in the way I think we should have from the beginning.


Jacques Flynn: Is it agreeable to the committee that we should proceed as indicated by the hon. member for Essex East? I recognize that the amendment is before the committee and I think the hon. member for Assiniboia is justified in asking that we dispose of the amendment before following the procedure indicated.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is agreeable.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Jacques Flynn: Shall the amendment
carry?


Edmund Davie Fulton: In connection with the amendment itself, Mr. Chairman, it is not one that the government can accept for a variety of reasons. The first reason, of course, is that this is a reversion to the attempt made in the special committee to change the form of our bill of rights from a general bill of rights into a bill of particulars and, further, to transform it from a bill of rights dealing with political rights and individual freedoms in the generally accepted sense of those words into a charter of economic rights.
There is no use beating around the bush about this matter. We have stated and stated
Human Rights
quite clearly that we did not make any attempt to make this a charter of economic rights, which would be an entirely separate sort of document dealing with an entirely different field from the field dealt with by a bill of rights. The time may come when that sort of charter should be introduced but that is not the attempt made here.
As I have said, we had in the special committee an attempt to change the bill of rights from a bill of rights into a bill of particulars. There were 22 separate amendments suggested mostly by members of the Liberal party, it is true. As I recall, the C.C.F. did not move a single amendment in the committee. I would point out that if those amendments had been adopted the subparagraphs would have gone up to (z) and we would have had to go back to (aa). As I said in the committee, I pity the school children who would be supposed to memorize a bill of rights when it was that kind of bill of particulars, which is not at all appropriate to the kind of document we are enacting. That is only one objection.
Another objection is that whatever the hon. member for Essex East or others may say about the proposed amendment, it does get us into the field of provincial jurisdiction. Whatever words you may put in the preamble indicating your intention to confine the bill to federal jurisdiction, it is, as I understand it, a law of interpretation that if, notwithstanding an expression of intent in a preamble, you introduce into that part of the bill that has legislative effect a provision which clearly goes beyond the intention expressed in the preamble then it is the section of the bill itself to which effect shall be given and not the words of the preamble.
Therefore, no matter how much we hedge it around by declarations of intent in a preamble, if in clause 1 or any of the other clauses of the bill we legislate on matters which are clearly within provincial competence the courts could not avoid saying that parliament intended to get into the provincial field and you would therefore likely have the result that the bill or part of the bill would be held to be ultra vires. We do not intend to legislate in the field of provincial competence for reasons which have been discussed exhaustively in the house and in the special committee, and for that reason in addition we cannot accept the amendment.
If anyone is in some doubt whether or not this is really a matter within provincial competence may I refer them and the hon. member for Essex East particularly to the opinion expressed by his leader on September 5, 1958 when, as Leader of the Opposition, he was discussing this sort of question in the house. At that time he was discussing the

Human Rights
applicability in Canada of the universal declaration of human rights, and he used these words as found on page 4648 of Hansard:


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the declaration of human rights of the United Nations has been accepted by Canada.


John George Diefenbaker: No.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, I think I am right that the declaration has been accepted. If I am wrong I will be corrected. It took some years, but I think it eventually was accepted by Canada. In any event, our hesitation in respect of this declaration, and I know something about this, arose from the fact that it included matters that were strictly within provincial jurisdiction. Therefore it could not be accepted with propriety by the Canadian delegation without having all of the provinces accept at least those parts of it which entrenched on provincial jurisdiction, and that was not done by all the provinces.
The very sort of provision which in those remarks the Leader of the Opposition recognized as being within provincial jurisdiction is this sort of provision relating to the right to work the sort of provision contained in article 23 of the universal declaration which reads as follows:
23(1). Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
That provision was sought to be inserted in the bill of rights by the hon. member for Essex East in the special committee. So, Mr. Chairman, it is obvious that this kind of provision, inevitably embracing as it does provincial jurisdictions, is not the kind of provision that we can insert into the federal, the Canadian bill of rights.
I think I have given sufficient reasons why it should not be inserted here. I indicated in the committee our reaction to this sort of proposal, that this sort of proposal is a statement of objectives. Certainly it is desirable that everybody should have the opportunity to work. We accept that as a statement of objective. We have accepted that by our agreement with the universal declaration of human rights as well as by other means, but this is a statement of objective to be implemented by other specific measures. That is why I say it is not part of a bill of rights which is a statement of basic human rights and fundamental freedoms. It is that kind of document and not a charter of specific economic privileges which would require to be followed up by specific enactments in the economic field in so far as we could do it within our jurisdiction.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I think we might as well meet this argument head on, because the minister is repeating the technique used in the committee and undoubtedly will register his objection to any proposal of this character. First of all, on the question of

the competence of parliament, my hon. friend says that if the amendment moved by the hon. member for Assiniboia were allowed to become integrated into clause 1 (a) it would be clear that the courts would rule this to be outside the competence of parliament notwithstanding the limitation in the preamble. I do not agree, first of all, with that statement because the preamble, under the rules of interpretation, may be used by the courts to determine the meaning of a section or of a word in a section.
If my hon. friend's argument had any validity, that validity would also have been present before there was any agreement by the administration to include a preamble in the bill, and when the bill was before us on second reading. There was no preamble at that time containing a phrase that suggested the limitation of federal competence under section 91. There was nothing in clause 2 that in any way limited the word "property" or the word "Canada". When we argued that the word "Canada" and the word "property" in section 2 were, as Mr. Louis Philippe Pigeon stated, a violation of provincial powers, the Minister of Justice and the Prime Minister argued to the contrary. I clearly stated in the house and in the committee that there was no doubt as to what the intention of the Prime Minister was. He intended the clause to touch on those matters that came within the jurisdiction of the federal parliament. I did state that the courts would not interpret what we said in this house, they would look at the wording of the bill. Notwithstanding that my hon. friend, when there was no preamble, when there was no thought of limitation on the words, argued that the words in the form in which they were presented did not lend themselves to the construction which he kept putting forward. Now my hon. friend cannot have both positions taken in different contexts.
I say to him that, assuming there was validity in what he said, and I do not agree that there was, and assuming that this limitation of powers has got to be in an operative part of the bill, we could put in an operative part of the bill, right in this clause, a clear indication that what is proposed in this amendment relates only to what is within the competence of the federal parliament. There could be no doubt about that. I would suggest that could be done, if it is necessary. I do not believe it will have to be done because the courts will look at the intention stated in the preamble, and particularly the French text which is unambiguous.
The second point that my hon. friend has met headlong is one we are going to have

to meet, of course, in the future with regard to another proposal which the Leader of the Opposition has in mind in another context. My hon. friend says this is a declaration of rights, and what is proposed in the amendment by the hon. member for Assiniboia is a bill of particulars.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It is the first step.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, it is the first step. I must say that I cannot follow that argument because if my hon. friend will look through his bill he will find there are many particulars. What about the particular which my hon. friend accepted in connection with reasonable bail, is that not a particular?


Mr. Small:: It is already in there.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It was not in
there until it was suggested by a Liberal member of the committee.


Robert Hardy Small: It is already in there.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I suggest my friend confine himself to the committee on industrial relations. I do not want to be unkind to the hon. member for Danforth.


Robert Hardy Small: It is already in there.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I agree with him, that it is in the English bill of rights. It is also in the act of settlement and in the habeas corpus acts; that is what we have been arguing about all week. Where has my hon. friend been? What about the right to counsel in the sense referred to in clause 2 (d)? There are a lot of particulars in this bill. Then how about the absolutes provided in clause 1, paragraphs (c), (d), (e) and (f)? I refer to the freedom of religion, speech, assembly and the press; those are absolutes. I will admit that the amendment puts forward a particular, but what is wrong with that? My hon. friend did not raise that argument when we were arguing in committee about clause 2 (b) with reference to the imposition of torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment. Those were particulars.
My hon. friend took the position at that time that notwithstanding that the concern of the particular amendment now before the committee was the same as the one in (b), namely a declaration of human rights, he could not delete the words which had been suggested by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway, "cruel and inhuman". He said the government could not put itself in that position because those words "cruel, inhuman and degrading" were taken right from the declaration on human rights. This amendment put forward by the hon. member for Assiniboia is taken from the declaration on
Human Rights
human rights, but that does not make it less valuable than when my hon. friend was prepared to accept that source. I suggest that this discussion will prevent the repetition of the argument later on by my hon. friend, and I suggest it is an amendment which, although I would sooner see it in the appropriate place in the bill, is one that commends itself to us and should be accepted by the government.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The statements of my hon. friend are, I am afraid, so erroneous that I cannot allow them to go without reply, especially if this question is going to arise again. I should like to establish it on a proper basis, and not on the erroneous basis on which the hon. member for Essex East has just left it. With respect to this matter of federal competence, I said that I did not think there was any need for a preamble saying that we were only legislating within the field of federal competence because I said we have drafted a bill in connection with matters only within the federal competence. We had been careful in the drafting of this bill not to get out of the field of federal competence and into the field of provincial authority. I suggested, therefore, that I did not believe a preamble was necessary from that point of view, but if my hon. friends were more impressed by the opinion of those who appeared before the committee then, in order to remove any element of uncertainty in the bill, I would say put in a preamble which makes it clear we are legislating only within the federal competence. I said this would not do any harm, and might be desirable. I did not believe the preamble was necessary in order to make it clear we were legislating in the federal field.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No, I agree.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is what my hon. friend was saying I had said. Notwithstanding that we have a preamble containing the clearest expression of intention, which I think we have, and notwithstanding that we are enlarging the bill of rights as now drawn to include subjects which are within provincial competence, then it does not matter what we said in the preamble, the courts will look at the statute we have enacted and will have to deal with it on that basis. I say again that in the bill of rights as we drafted it and as it came out of the committee there is nothing in the legislative portions which steps outside the field of federal competence.
_ With regard to property there is no question that there are aspects of property within federal competence. Not all property rights are reserved to the provinces under section 92. Section 92 makes it clear that the only property rights within the jurisdiction of the

Human Rights
provinces are exactly those. Section 13 gives to the provinces jurisdiction over property and civil rights in the provinces. So that makes it quite clear, if further clarity were necessary, that in respect of those heads under section 91 which have any aspect of property connected with them, property in those aspects is within the federal field of competence.
Therefore it is appropriate for us to use words in the bill of rights, as we did, referring to the "enjoyment of property". Any property rights contained in the bill as it came out of the committee would be interpreted by the courts as matters coming within the federal field of jurisdiction, and I think the preamble makes clear our intention. If we accepted what the opposition invited us to insert into the bill we would be in many cases putting in matters within provincial jurisdiction, and we would have a bill of rights not confined to the federal field at all. The question of employment is a field within the provincial jurisdiction. I would say at once without fear of contradiction that it is a field within provincial jurisdiction far more than within federal jurisdiction, that it cannot be accepted by this parliament, and that this government, with its respect for the constitution, is not prepared to accept it.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, we have heard a number of objections by the Minister of Justice and I do not think any one of them will really stand up. First of all he said that he did not want this to be a bill of particulars. As has already been stated by the hon. member for Essex East, in many ways this is a bill of particulars.


Edmund Davie Fulton: No. It is in the tradition of bills of rights as they have always existed.


Hazen Robert Argue: In the tradition of bills of rights as the minister interprets the tradition. I say there are many particulars in this bill, and there should also be in it a declaration that a Canadian citizen has the right to employment at a fair and equitable remuneration.
The minister also said that the Canadian government has rejected any inclusion of economic rights, but surely the right to property is an economic right and this economic right is in the bill. Is it any more an economic right to be protected in your right to the enjoyment of property than to have the opportunity to earn a living?
This bill, of course, does not include economic rights because the Tory party does not want it to include economic rights. If the Tory party wanted it to include economic rights, the government would put the same in the bill. It is perfectly all right and we

are perfectly in agreement, as we have said, to have all the present rights enunciated, but a person should have something in this bill other than the right to starve, other than the right to malnutrition, other than the right to exist in Canada without an income. Surely it is not too much to say that in 1960 we should have in a Canadian bill of rights the declaration that a person should have the right to employment. The government of course would be in contempt of this bill of rights if this were there, because half a million Canadians could prove that the bill of rights did not apply to them, at least until such time as the government had taken further action.
I think the minister now raises excuses that even he must know are not very substantial. He said you will get too many lettered paragraphs in this clause. We might have to go up to the letter "z" and then look at the poor school children he said who study the bill. Is this a valid reason on which to found an argument to exclude a section which says that Canadians should have the right to employment at a fair and reasonable remuneration?
My understanding of the bill of rights in the main as far as school children are concerned is that we should put a preamble in the bill which would be in picturesque and imaginative language and that it was the preamble which would hang in the schools, and that the school children would probably study that part of the bill of rights and not the bill of rights in all its detail. Even if we made it slightly more difficult for students because we added another clause, surely that is no reason to set aside the proposition that it is time in this country that we said people should have the right to employment at a fair and equitable remuneration.
The minister said that if this were put in the bill the courts would declare it ultra vires. He has said that it is all right to have enjoyment of property in the bill, though he does not say this is exclusively a federal jurisdiction. No one will say that the question of fair and equitable remuneration is entirely a federal jurisdiction; but also no one will surely say that the federal government has not some authority, some responsibility, in the field of employment.
Mr. Chairman, we put this forward because we think it would strengthen the bill of rights. We think the bill of rights without any economic provision will allow many people who have no visible means of support because they have no jobs to go on in this condition without the federal government going at least so far as to set forth in the bill of

rights that Canadians should have the right to employment at a fair and equitable remuneration.
Even if the government should vote down this amendment, that does not kill the idea. In my view it is just as essential to have economic rights as it is to have other rights. The two go together; they are inseparable. We feel that economic rights can best be achieved when we have protection as defined in this bill; but we suggest that this bill is not complete and that it should be made more complete by the inclusion of such an amendment.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The hon. member unfortunately was not in the committee at the time but he really seeks now to revive a discussion which was carried on at great length, where the matter was discussed calmly, sensibly and friendly, which features I regret to say have not characterized the discussion of the question here. The hon. member has tried here merely to make a political, tub thumping argument in the hope that he will dragoon the members of the majority to vote for something which is necessary, but we are not going to be dragooned in that way, and for the reasons I have given.
I will not be able to convince the hon. member, but if I cannot convince him, he might be more open to conviction by consulting the terms of the bill of rights in Saskatchewan, his own province, where he will not find a right to work clause. All you have with respect to employment is a non-discrimination clause. But clauses 8 and 9 of the Saskatchewan bill of rights do not purport to confer the right to work. That was introduced by a C.C.F. government. On what reasons they concluded that it would be unsound to include a similar provision I do not know, but they obviously came to that conclusion because they did not put it in. Therefore I think that demonstrates the sincerity of the political appeal made by the hon. member for Assiniboia.


Mr. Browne (Vancouver-Kings):: It is certainly clear that this proposed amendment would be entirely beyond the powers of the federal government. That is plain to everybody; but I think, nevertheless, we should consider some of the implications of the suggested amendment. It suggested that the government should, I presume, have the responsibility of providing everybody with employment and if that is to be the case I take it it must have the right to direct people to employment. That would mean the elimination of trade unions because if a man did not want to belong to a trade union that would not prevent him having the right to be employed. As to rates 79951-0-469
Human Rights
of pay, I presume it would be the government which would have to set what the amendment calls "reasonable rates of pay". We would be in some sort of police state where we would be directed through every step of our lives by the government. The hon. member for Assiniboia might like this, but I would never support any argument leading to a situation such as that.


Hazen Robert Argue: I do not think the minister has helped his own argument at all by the wild and abusive language he has used, such words as "tub thumping", "not intelligent" and so on. This is not the kind of language which is ordinarily used by a careful, methodical minister of justice. However, the hon. gentleman took off on this subject and I must say I enjoyed it very much, though I do not think it helped his own argument to get himself into that position.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Hazen Robert Argue: If these intolerant and noisy trained seals surrounding the minister-


Edmund Davie Fulton: Who is being carried away now?


Hazen Robert Argue: -would restrain themselves for a while-this is very moderate language compared with the language which the hon. gentleman used when he was on this side of the house and faced with such noise and obstruction. In fact, a colleague of his got himself draped in a flag-


Jacques Flynn: Order.


Hazen Robert Argue: -because of the intolerance of the great majority in those days, and apparently those conditions have been continued even though the administration has changed.


Jacques Flynn: Order.


An hon. Member:: You have been challenged.


Hazen Robert Argue: Oh, I have been challenged plenty; I have been challenged all afternoon, and I enjoy it; I hope it continues.


William Heward Grafftey: Good for your martyr complex.


Hazen Robert Argue: I am not asking for any quarter. The minister and hon. members can use any language they see fit within the rules.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Do you think they can hear you out in Regina, next week?


Hazen Robert Argue: I thank the minister for what I think was something of an indirect compliment. It is not often that the third party in this country can create so much interest in the minds of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice.

Human Rights


An hon. Member:: What third party?


Hazen Robert Argue: I see the Prime Minister has other things to do than to sit in this chamber at the moment.
The Minister of Justice said that out in Saskatchewan where the government presented a bill of rights as long ago as 1947, some 13 years ahead of this parliament, there was no provision in it such as the one advanced by this group at this time. I think a clause of that type is not in that bill for a very good reason. The government of Saskatchewan like, I think, those of most provinces has taken the position that it is impossible for a provincial government to solve the whole economic question of widespread unemployment in this country-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Hazen Robert Argue: -and that the question of unemployment must be something within the responsibility of the federal government. This federal government is trying to get away from that. Someone said it would be a police state if everybody had a chance to work. That, of course, is the attitude of the Tory party-a man should be free to be unemployed; he should be free not to have an income.


Mr. Maclnnis:: Would the hon. member mind explaining to the committee just what effect his amendment would have on the right to strike which is embodied in union constitutions?


Hazen Robert Argue: It would not affect it in any way in my opinion, but it would declare to the half million Canadians who are unemployed that in the opinion of the parliament of this country they should have the opportunity to work, an opportunity to employment at a fair and equitable remuneration.
I can appreciate the great interest that this amendment is creating in this committee. I hope we shall get something more from the government than this type of loose abuse.


Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: Would the hon. member permit a question? Would he explain what he means by the right to work as applied to a citizen, say, John Jones, in a small town in Newfoundland?


Hazen Robert Argue: I may be able to do something to educate some of the members of this house but I think it is going too far to expect me to help the hon. gentleman who asked that question. This amendment is intended to amend the bill-


William Joseph Browne: Would the hon. member answer my question? I will make it simpler for him. Would he explain what he means by the right to work.


Hazen Robert Argue: I was not using the term "right to work". This amendment would provide the right of the individual to life, liberty and employment at a fair and equitable rate of remuneration.


William Joseph Browne: Does that not mean the right to employment?


Hazen Robert Argue: If the people who are out of work today would like to work, as I am sure they would, this just means that the parliament of Canada says that the economy of this country would be so operated that job opportunities would be available. I cannot help it if the hon. member is unable to understand. I can appreciate that this government, like the R. B. Bennett government, is in office during a period of widespread unemployment and is doing nothing about it. I do not expect that this government is going to do anything about the widespread unemployment in Canada, much less declare within a bill of rights that people should have such an opportunity-


John Ferguson Browne: Those are the kind of rights they have under communist governments.


Hazen Robert Argue: I do not take the attitude of the hon. member who says that along with freedom there should be the right of half a million people to walk the streets while the government does nothing.


William Heward Grafftey: The hon. member never said that. Be responsible.


Hazen Robert Argue: That apparently is the attitude of the Tory party. I did not think they would take this attitude. I thought they would discuss in a quiet and reflective manner whether or not this is the type of provision that should be in the bill of rights and whether it would have strengthened the economic rights of the Canadian people. We think this is a good amendment and that the time has come when economic rights should be recognized in Canada. The day will come when this will be done and the sooner it is done the better.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, the minister in respect of this amendment has taken a position which presumably will be applicable in principle at least to other amendments of this type. The hon. gentleman has indicated to us that he does not intend to be dragooned out of that position.
The position is twofold. There is the question of jurisdiction. We were assured and reassured about this bill even before it had a preamble that in respect of all the matters included in the bill it would be applicable only within the limits of federal jurisdiction. By his argument a few moments ago the

minister has thrown some doubt on the constitutional validity of the bill in that respect.
The other position taken by the minister is that this amendment and others like it will make the bill into a bill of particulars. As has already been pointed out, the bill already includes particulars. What the minister wants, apparently, is a bill of selected particulars. In respect of this particular amendment we will vote for it as an indication of our belief that no bill of political rights is sufficient unless there is a recognition of economic rights.
Amendment (Mr. Argue) negatived: Yeas, 17; nays, 61.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, I should like to deal with paragraph 1 of clause 1. I wish to move seconded by-


Mr. Kucherepa:: The hon. member for
Assiniboia?


Paul Joseph James Martin: -the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont:
That lines 18 to 22 inclusive be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"These human rights and fundamental freedoms shall continue to exist in Canada without discrimination by reason of race, national origin, colour, religion or sex."
The Minister of Justice will not be unfamiliar with the context of this amendment. The hon. gentleman will recall that in the committee when he spoke generally on the bill before the clause by clause consideration he said that the words "it is hereby recognized and declared" had the effect of making it a legal enactment; it was not merely a declaration in mandatory form but was much more than that, it was a clear enactment in the full sense of the meaning of the words "statutory law". I suggest that there is at least doubt on that point. The evidence of Mr. Mundell at page 595 is very clear on this point. It is not necessary to traverse all that Mr. Mundell said but it is clear that in his judgment the phrase which the minister has used does not have the legal enactment effect which he proposes.
I shall come back to the legal argument in a moment when I have found Mr. Mundell's exact words but let me turn now to another argument. The minister said the intention was that there should be a cut-off in the bill for the purpose of impressing young people and the public generally, so that clauses 3, 4, 5 and 6 would not form part of the document that would hang on the walls of schools, churches and so on.
I suggest that apart from the legal argument the language of this particular portion containing the words "it is hereby recognized and declared" does not have the forthrightness and the appeal of the words contained in 79951-0-4694
Human Rights
the amendment I have put forward. The language of the amendment is clear, simple and as concise in terms of legal procedure and effect as I think one could muster.
Mr. Chairman, may I call it six o'clock. At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, before the dinner recess, I had been urging the minister to consider that the relative simplicity of the words suggested would meet the objective the government had in mind. The public relations aspect, to which I give full support, might be further advanced by the use of words as precise in their legal effect but less legal in form. The amendment seemed to meet that particular objective. It would certainly appeal more, I think, to children and non-legal people than the phrase "It is hereby recognized and declared".
But the argument, of course, must be stronger than that. The argument is based on the minister's statement that the clause as drawn has the effect of a legal enactment. Mr. David Mundell dealt with this point, and I refer to some extracts of his evidence which will be found at pages 472 and 473 of the minutes of proceedings and evidence. At page 472 Mr. Mundell said:
Now, the operative word is the word "declare", but then it declares that certain things shall exist; so, you have a declaration of a sort of mandatory state of affairs. Is that a mere empty declaration, in the sense of its having any legal operation as a rule of law, or is it the equivalent of saying, "There is hereby enacted the following rights and freedoms"? All I am saying at this time is that there are differences of opinion both ways, and I suggest it is unwise for a statute to be enacted with the certain knowledge there is ambiguity in it.
Then at the top of page 473 he said:
The bill could say, "It is hereby declared that there are the following freedoms"; a statement of fact. But here it is said, "It is hereby recognized and declared that there shall continue to exist". It is a declaration of a mandatory situation. What does it say? Is it simply a declaration that there are certain things existing-which may be right or wrong but it does not make law;___
That seems to me to be an important observation. Mr. Mundell was an experienced officer in the Department of Justice for a long time, and is now a professor of constitutional law, with some considerable professional experience, at Osgoode hall. He says:
-but it does not make law; or is this bill an attempt to make law providing for these freedoms?

Human Rights
Then in the middle of the page he said:
Well, I would say, sir, that the tact that saying it has the effect of law has in it a latent ambiguity in itself. It is certainly a legal declaration that is made; but does it go beyond merely a declaration?
The minister certainly did not want it to go beyond a mere declaration; but he wanted it to be what in fact he said it was, a legal enactment.
Assuming one of these freedoms does not exist under any rule, would it make it exist as a matter of law? Does it enact these freedoms, or does it simply declare an existing state of fact, without altering or varying their existence? Do I make myself clear?


Edmund Davie Fulton: No.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Those words are not mine. I can very well understand the minister's difficulty but I think this is very germane. Then the final point that I should like to make on this clause is that it should be noted that this is a change from the earlier clause. The earlier clause read:
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.
It will be remembered that beginning wtih the first witness, Professor Scott of McGill University, objection was taken to the use of the word "always" as a misstatement of historical fact. The word was deleted by the minister at the suggestion of members of the committee. I suggest that the clause which I propose by way of amendment would meet the purposes the government and the minister have in mind; it would have other advantages which I have mentioned.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, we had some discussion of this question in the committee, and it was the question of whether the form of a declaration was any the less positive law, any less effect as an enacting law than the form of words without a declaration.
With respect to Mr. Mundell and' other witnesses who put forward this view, my considered opinion is it is not only not weaker in the form of a declaration but indeed it is stronger. After all, every enactment by parliament is a declaration. We could put into the bill of rights the provision that every person has the right to freedom of religion. Is this any the less law if it is stated that it is hereby declared that every person in Canada has the right to freedom of religion? Of course, it is not any the less law; indeed, it is a stronger enactment of the law because the declaration strengthens it by taking it out of the rule against the retrospective operation of statutes, and it is our declared intention to have this bill of rights have a retrospective effect and application with respect to statutes

now on the books. I submit, therefore, that the declaration form is stronger than the form of the amendment suggested by the hon. member for Essex East.
In support of my view, may I remind the committee that the British North America Act itself uses the form of declaration in section 91 which outlines those subjects upon which it is competent for the parliament of Canada to legislate, where it says:
And for greater certainty, but not so as to restrict the generality of the foregoing terms of this section, it is hereby declared that (notwithstanding anything in this act) the exclusive legislative authority of the parliament of Canada extends to all matters coming within the classes of subjects next hereinafter enumerated.
And the courts have passed upon this ever since 1867, and never has the question been raised that the form of words "it is hereby declared" has the force of a legislative enactment, so I am not able to accept the amendment.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not rise now to answer the minister but to make one further observation, for the record. I do not agree with the minister, but I have stated our position, as I had stated it in committee. There I stated it at greater length than I am doing tonight; but I simply wish to observe that in clause 1, as it is now before the committee, it will be noted that the minister has accepted the suggestion that was made in the committee about the antidiscrimination feature. The minister has recognized the suggestion that was made by pushing up the anti-discrimination principle from (b) to the main clause.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The introductory words; that is correct.
Amendment (Mr. Martin, Essex East) negatived: Yeas, 19; nays, 46.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Chairman, I wish to refer to clause 1, subparagraph (a) on page 2 of the bill and the legal phrase "by due process of law". The minister will remember that in the committee we tried to have this phrase changed so as to improve the bill. He will also remember that there was testimony by many witnesses who thought that if we kept this legal phrase we might open the door to some legal uncertainty. I should like to read a few words from the testimony of Professor Scott. As quoted on page 598 of the proceedings of the committee, he said:
I think the last thing I referred to was the phrase "due process of law" in clause 2, paragraph
(a), and I pointed out it would have more than one meaning. Since the protection of the declaration of property is a matter mostly decided, although not exclusively, by provincial law, and since we know, under the Canadian constitution,

that a person can be deprived by a province of his property in any manner the province decides to adopt, including outright confiscation, it would seem to me that the phrase "due process of law" there can only mean "according to law".
I should also like to refer to a few comments made by the minister, as found on page 599 of the evidence, who admitted that to a certain extent he was rather embarrassed by this legal phrase. The minister said:
It is true that we cannot say that our courts would follow all the American jurisprudence; but our courts could not fail to take account of the fact that these words are in the American constitution, that they have been given judicial interpretation.
Also, Mr. Chairman, I should like to refer to a short passage in the testimony of Professor Mundell as found on page 482 of the proceedings of the committee. Professor Mundell said:
The only point that I was making about the expression there is that there is uncertainty as to whether it means just that or means more than that. If it was intended to have a more restricted meaning, then it should be so stated.
We also have the testimony of Professor Cohen on the meaning of this legal phrase. As found on page 378 of the minutes of proceedings and evidence, Professor Cohen said:
I would say that the terms may not be comfortable to some Canadian lawyers and to some Canadian judges; but they do have a respectable lineage; the lineage is far back for us. But if you wish to change it, you might use the phrase "except by law". Law means process; law means substance; "except by law".
I have no more to add, Mr. Chairman, except to say that this legal phrase has been imported from the United States system of law. It is not customary in our Canadian system of law and therefore it opens the door to some uncertainties. We would like the bill to be as good as possible and we should like to see all possible doors to legal uncertainties closed. We know very well the meaning of the phrase "in accordance with law". We find it very often in our statutes. For all these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Essex East:
That paragraph (a) of clause 1, page 2, be amended as follows:
That the words "by due process of law" be deleted from lines 3 and 4 and the words "in accordance with law" be substituted therefor.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, this point again is one that was discussed fully in the committee and we had an interesting exchange with Professor Cohen whose evidence has been cited by the hon. member for Maison-neuve-Rosemont. However, I think the hon. member in his citation of Professor Cohen's evidence should have gone a little further because we would then have seen that I
Human Rights
questioned Professor Cohen as to the desirability of substituting the expression "in accordance with law" for the expression "by due process of law". As found on the same page, page 378, a little further down I said:
I think that it might open the door to the interpretation that if parliament should pass a law, then as long as it stayed on the statute books you could do this.


Mr.   Cohen@: It may be. I accept that, but I would assume the history of human life and the law during the last 40 years suggests the Canadian courts look at the words "by law" as meaning "reasonably".
I went on to say:
But I was thinking of the statute Itself. Some people think that the Expropriation Act is excessive in the powers it carries, but suppose you had the phrase "except by law", would it not be open to argue that so long as you have a law, even an excessive law or a harsh expropriation act, the courts could not look at it and say it is inconsistent with the bill of rights. The bill of rights would say "except by law". You are invoking a law.
Professor Cohen then said:
I think your point is well taken. It would require further imagination to read into it what I want to read into it.
By "it" there he refers to the expression he suggested, namely, "according to law". So he admitted that my point was well taken and that the expression "due process of law" did have an advantage going beyond the mere expression "according to law". I have not been able, as a result of my subsequent consideration of the matter, to come to a different conclusion from that which I expressed in the committee and, therefore, the government could not accept the amendment.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: I should like to ask the
minister if he also remembers that the vice chairman of the Canadian Bar Association expressed, on behalf of the bar association, concern about this legal phraseology.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes, that is my recollection, Mr. Chairman. We think that "due process of law", being a phrase of ancient and honourable lineage in English common law going back to 1335 and having received interpretations in the United States courts which have had beneficial results there, as was admitted by Professor Cohen, that notwithstanding the doubts that have been expressed, the better opinion is that there are more advantages in the phrase "due process of law" than in the alternative phrases that have been suggested.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I just want to add that the evidence before the committee clearly established that the phrase "due process of law", while not entirely unknown to Anglo-Canadian law having been mentioned in a statute of Edward II, has not for a long time been in current use in our jurisprudence. We

Human Rights
have relied on the English practice and we recognize "according to law" or "according by law" or "in accordance with law", following the usages in United Kingdom courts as a means of expressing what in the United States legal system they understand by due process. Due process is recognized in the United States constitution and it has been subjected to different interpretations in hundreds of cases in that country. It means different things in different jurisdictions. While our courts are not obligated to regard United States decisions as authoritative, and while I recognize that United States decisions, in the absence of Canadian judgments, may be regarded as persuasive, the fact is that by the use of "due process" in this context and in this unusual way we are imposing upon our courts an obligation to begin a new Canadian jurisprudence.
This is not the case in Canadian law with regard to the suggested phrase "in accordance with law" or "by law" or the other phrase I mentioned a moment ago. I hope that the minister has been impressed with the evidence on this point and I hope that he will give consideration to the amendment before the committee.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I should like to indicate that we have an open mind when we first give consideration to these things but after giving consideration to them and giving due weight to the points of view that are advanced by others who are concerned with the matters involved we come to a conclusion as to what is the best course to follow. Then I am not able to convince myself I would be acting in accordance with my duties if I were to tell parliament that I agree to some course I did not think was the best course. We believe the phrase "due process of law" is the best phrase in this context for the purpose we have in mind.
Amendment (Mr. Deschatelets) negatived: Yeas, 27; nays, 69.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Before we deal with paragraph (b), it is noteworthy that the original paragraph of clause formerly 2 (b), read as follows:
(b)	the right ol the individual to protection of the law without discrimination by reason of race, national origin, colour, religion or sex;
The paragraph now reads:
(b) the right of the individual to equality before the law and the protection of the law;
The discriminatory feature has been pushed up, pursuant to suggestions that were made from this party, to clause 1, and there has been added to paragraph (b) the phrase, "equality before the law". The minister will recall the discussion on this point. It was felt by the government that the amendment,

we proposed, the phrase "protection of the law without discrimination" etc., did not strengthen the clause to the extent which it was felt was desirable. The minister did accept the suggestion that the phrase "equality before the law", which I think very considerably strengthens that subsection, did strengthen the subsection.
I would simply observe that with regard to the other rights mentioned, those are all absolutes in form but we have assumed that they carry with them qualifications now provided for in our law. None of these are really absolute freedoms. Indeed the minister made the observation in committee that it was envisaged, for instance, in the case of freedom of the press that did not mean licence of the press, and I fully agree. Having noted that they are absolutes, it should not be forgotten, with regard to the suggestion that was made earlier in the amendment moved by the hon. member for Assini-boia and the amendments that were moved by this party in the committee, they, too, need not be regarded as absolutes but could be regarded for what they are as a declaration of particular human rights, with obvious qualifications, which I should have thought would make it possible for the government to readily accept the suggestions which we did introduce based upon the various provisions in the declaration on human rights.


Hubert Badanai: Mr. Chairman, the fundamental freedoms specified in clause 1 seem to deal in one way or another principally with the protection of the individual from the state. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Humber-St. George's:
That clause 1 be amended as follows; That the following paragraph, to be designated paragraph
(c), be added after the present paragraph (b):
"The right of the Individual to the protection of the law against arbitrary interference with privacy, family, home, or correspondence, and against attacks upon his honour and reputation." and that the remaining paragraphs be relettered accordingly.
This amendment to clause 1 puts the state in a much more favourable light by declaring that the individual also possesses certain rights and protection by the state. This particular amendment deals with the protection that the state provides against wrongs that may be inflicted upon any one individual by other individuals, which may be inflicted in the course of ordinary social relationships. One would expect and hope that the honour of a man and the beliefs he holds would be a guide and inspiration to him in everything he says and does; hence the advancement of this particular amendment which I think is an important one.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, here again we have a matter which was discussed fully in the special committee. The hon. members opposite made an attempt there, as they do now, to insert the general provisions of article XII of the universal declaration into the Canadian bill of rights. I can only say once again, repeating what I said in the committee, that most of what they have in mind is already covered in the wording of our bill of rights, which again serves to establish the adequacy of the draftsmanship of our bill of rights.
What do they ask? They ask that we particularize with respect to the right of the individual to the protection of the law against arbitrary interference with privacy, family, home, or correspondence. May I point out that this bill really declares that there exist in Canada the right of the individual to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property. If you have the right to security of the person you are protected then against arbitrary interference with privacy. If you have the right to security you are protected against arbitrary interference with your family, and also against arbitrary interference with your home. Our bill goes on to say that a person has the right to the enjoyment of property. If he has the right to the enjoyment of property he is protected against arbitrary interference with correspondence, which is another particular which this amendment seeks to introduce. So I say with respect to the first four particulars of this amendment that they are already covered in the present bill of rights.
Then the amendment goes on to deal with what I suggest are really matters in the field of private rights, the question of rights as between individuals. The hon. member for Fort William in moving this amendment, when he came to that part of it which deals with attacks upon "his honour and reputation" made it clear that he was thinking there of an attack by one individual upon the honour and reputation of another individual. That is why I say that here he is dealing with the field of private rights. That is the sort of thing which is covered by the law of torts, the law of libel, slander and so on. That again is not the sort of thing to write into a bill of rights dealing with the basic rights and fundamental freedoms of the individual in the over-all political sense in which we are using those terms here. That is a matter which has always been left to the operation of private law, the law of torts, in the way I have described.


Hubert Badanai: Mr. Chairman, what the minister is implying is that the present wording is all embracing, but I submit it is so
Human Rights
only by inference. It does not spell out the real meaning of the bill. It does not spell out the fundamental freedoms which we want to put in the bill. Due process of law does not cover the situation which we envisage and would like to see spelled out in the bill. In other words, we would like to see this particularized so that everyone can understand in simple language every right which is going to be embodied in the bill of rights.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, I am sure that the committee will recognize that the argument put forward by the hon. member for Fort William is not without its merit. I would have hoped that this partic-lar amendment would make a stronger appeal to the minister than it obviously has made.
I think the minister displayed the weakness of his argument in his last observation, when he said that these rights which the hon. member had embodied in his amendment could be protected by action in court. That is perhaps the very essence of the whole matter. We do not deny that there are now in the law remedies to protect the home, the family, one's correspondence, honour and reputation. There are ways and means in the existing law to protect these various rights. Of that there is no question and the minister said that there were now in the law these instruments of protection.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I was dealing there with the last two alone, honour and reputation. I said that the first four are covered in the present bill of rights.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes. With regard to the last two let me deal with them now. All of the rights mentioned in this bill can be safeguarded and are safeguarded by the existing law. This bill does not in any way change the existing law. This bill does not in any way afford a protection which is not afforded in our existing statute or common law.


Edmund Davie Fulton: You are quite wrong there.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The minister says I am wrong but that is my view. That is also the evidence of every witness who appeared before the committee.


Edmund Davie Fulton: No.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is the unanimous view of the Canadian Bar Association.


John George Diefenbaker: It is not.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Prime Minister says it is not. I would be happy to have him show me where it is not. That is the

Human Rights
view of the Ontario bar association in the draft bill of rights they put forward.


John Ferguson Browne: Would the hon. member permit a question. He suggested that this bill does not change anything. Can he tell us why we were so concerned in the committee that if we did not change the wording in one specific clause it would be open to the courts to abolish capital punishment? Does he not think, if he was so worried to see that that was changed, that the bill does do something?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. member has taken a bad example because we have taken out the objectionable words to which hon. members objected, such as the words inhuman, degrading and cruel, and also torture. They were deleted. What I am saying is this. The evidence before the committee establishes without any shadow of doubt that this bill declaratory in form does not alter the fundamental law of the land. The fundamental law of the land includes Magna Carta, the habeas corpus acts and the act of settlement.


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I just ask a question. If the hon. member be of opinion that that was the evidence, will he explain why it was that so many witnesses who came before the committee dealt at such length with what they said were the uncertainties in the law? If it changed nothing, how could it create uncertainties?


Paul Joseph James Martin: There is no particular difficulty in that. What we were interested in seeing was that this declaratory form of statute was put in as perfect a state as possible and we endeavoured to contrive words to do that. That was the purpose of the exercise which took up some 25 meetings.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Surely a thing that changes nothing cannot create uncertainties.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The uncertainties were caused by the use of certain words. The words "due process" create great uncertainty because they do not have in our jurisprudence the settled meaning they have in a varied way in the United States. The hon. gentleman cannot therefore address as an answer to the argument of the hon. member for Fort William the proposition that there is now in the law that method for the protection of those rights. Arbitrary interference with privacy, with the family, home, corre-spondance are all capable of protection under the existing law. All we do when we say freedom of assembly, freedom of the press is to declare not something new but to reaffirm what we say in the preamble, what we

recognize to be the present law, and that present law is determined in the case of freedom of religion in the two Saumur cases. The hon. member for Bellechasse reminds me that there is a second case on now in which there is some argument as to the exclusive competence of the federal government in the field of religion. The question of the freedom of the press, yes. My hon. friend the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont points out that the case to which the hon. member for Bellechasse directed our intention was before Judge Lizotte who said:
(Translation):
Justice Lizotte does not share that opinion. According to him, freedom of religion falls into the category of civil rights, a category which, under the constitution, is restricted to the provinces. The plaintiffs also claimed that the act being infringed came under criminal law, because penalties were provided for offences.
(Text):
It is clear, therefore, that the fundamental law of the land deals with the situation. The fundamental law of the land deals with the rights which the hon. member for Fort William has sought to have us protect, and all that we are doing is to ask that there should be a recognition in the law by way of a declaration against arbitrary interference with privacy, against the family, against the home, correspondence and attacks upon one's honour and reputation. This is a declaration against molestation, in part, and molestation is one of those rights which Sir Frederick Pollock thought the common law did not adequately deal with, and that was later followed by the decision in the Christie case where there was an attempt to define the matter more clearly.
There is one further argument that is incorporated in this amendment of the hon. member for Fort William. We have recognized in the preamble the importance of the home and the family in Canadian society. We say in the first paragraph of the preamble:
The parliament of Canada, affirming that the Canadian nation is founded upon principles that acknowledge the supremacy of God, the dignity and worth of the human person and the position of the family in a society of free men and free institutions;
We recognize this right in the preamble, as we do the human rights and fundamental freedoms in this bill. Should we not take advantage, then, of declaring that one of the rights in this bill of rights is the existence of the home-le foyer-the family, the solid basic elemental institution in our society? That is the purport of part of this amendment and I had hoped that the minister himself who, I am sure, in principle, shares our concern in this matter would recognize the validity of our proposal. This is relevant to

a declaration on human rights. Again I remind the hon. gentleman of the strong arguments that he made in committee. As he told the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway and other members of the committee, he could not take out "torture", he could not take out "cruel, inhuman and degrading" because that would put the Canadian government in an invidious position vis-a-vis the declaration on human rights. He reminded us that the Soviet union would say of us that we were accepting lesser terms in our bill of rights than we were in the declaration on human rights. Well, the declaration on human rights says:
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence nor to attacks on his honour or reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attack.
So I would urge the minister to reconsider his position and to recognize that there could be no harm result from the inclusion of this kind of declaration. It will be notice to all and sundry that this nation of free people recognizes the validity and the solid basis of the family as a vital factor in the Canadian nation. That seems to me to be an argument that ought to impress the government and I had hoped it would.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The hon. gentleman overlooks the fact that in seeking to introduce this amendment restricting the protection of the law to particulars he would, as I see it, cut down the extent of the protection provided under subparagraph (a), because that subparagraph without restriction says an individual has the right 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. The individual enjoys those rights without restriction. Without inhibition, he enjoys them in every aspect of his life as an individual.
Now the hon. gentleman seeks to introduce a limitation. He seeks to introduce a particularization and say: This right applies only to protection against arbitrary interference with privacy, or family, or home or correspondence; that is the field within which we want these rights to operate. We want them to operate in general, in toto with respect to all aspects of the life and being of the individual. How can it possibly be seriously argued that if an individual has a right to security of the person he is not protected in his family life?
The family is a group of individuals and each one of them has the right to the security of the person and the enjoyment of property. Therefore the family as a unit enjoys the sum total of all the rights of the individual who make up that family, rights that we have 79951-0-470
Human Rights
ensured in this bill. We do not want these rights to be confined within the narrow limits that the hon. member seeks to set out each time he introduces another particular. The effect would be to weaken, not to strengthen the provisions contained in this measure. Our bill of rights is better in that it does not limit the protection that the individual enjoys or that the family enjoys as a group of individuals enjoying the collective rights that every one of us as an individual enjoys.
With regard to the final parts of the amendment, protection against attacks on honour and reputation, again I can only say that they are subject to law now. In this respect we are not doing anything, but these are under provincial laws. Does the hon. gentleman suggest we can enact a federal law against ordinary libel and slander? It is the law of libel and slander that gives the power to protect against infringement of these rights. Most certainly it is. We have no power to enact a law of libel or slander.


Paul Joseph James Martin: We are not enacting; we are just declaring. Surely that is the situation.


Edmund Davie Fulton: This, I think, is revealing exactly the difference between us and the opposition. They want us to declare a law with respect to rights that the federal parliament has no power to protect because we have no power to enact laws of libel and slander. Therefore, what on earth is the point of our legislating and saying there are rights of protection in the field of libel and slander? We have no power over that. My hon. friend would have a hollow, empty declaration, a great many hollow words meaning nothing, if we followed' his policy.
That is not the kind of bill of rights we want. We want a bill of rights within the federal field of competence declaring rights that attach to the individual which this parliament has the power to ensure can attach to him so that parliament can see that he gets the full protection of those rights. That is why we have set our faces against all these efforts to introduce meaningless, hollow phrases which would be a shallow puff trying to pretend to the people that you are doing something you know perfectly well you cannot do for them.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, I cannot let the last words of my hon. friend go unchallenged. My hon. friend says we are asking parliament to declare a bunch of hollow rights. I cannot agree that a declaration by this parliament within the terms of its competence, having in mind the limitation of our powers as recognized in the preamble, when we refer to the home and family is a declaration of hollow rights.

Human Rights


Edmund Davie Fulton: We have the whole of the family covered in the bill now.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I believe that a declaration by this parliament, within the limits provided for, as to the powers of this parliament in the preamble is not a hollow declaration any more than it was a hollow declaration for the government of Canada to join in the declaration on human rights.


John George Diefenbaker: It never did, as a matter of fact.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I did not hear my right hon. friend's interjection.


John George Diefenbaker: I said it never did, as a matter of fact. You would not bring it before parliament.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Have you?


Paul Joseph James Martin: This is the second time the Prime Minister has mentioned this. On the previous occasion, I reminded him that he was a private member of this house, a champion of human rights, and I should have thought that if he had not appreciated the implication in so far as the property and civil rights clause in section 92 was concerned, there was nothing to prevent his rising in this house and moving that the government of Canada take action in connection with that declaration consistent with his cherished views.


John George Diefenbaker: What would have been the result?
Amendment (Mr. Badanai) negatived: Yeas, 25; nays, 85.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, before we proceed to the next item I should like to say one thing to the minister. When the hon. gentleman was commenting on the first amendment proposed this afternoon, he said that the proposed amendment clearly dealt with something outside the competence of parliament. I commented and said that surely we have dealt with that by the provisions put in the preamble which take into account that the matters being dealt with in this bill are only within the competence of the federal parliament. I do not think there is any doubt that in so far as judicial interpretation is concerned, the courts in trying to ascertain the meaning of a section or a word in a section are entitled under judicial interpretation practice to refer to the preamble for assistance as to the meaning of a section or parts thereof.
I want to tell the minister now so that he will not raise this argument-because I want him to know that so that when we come to

clause 5 there can be no doubt we are dealing with matters in law only within the competence of the federal parliament-I propose to move an amendment to clause 5 that will clearly indicate that nothing in this act shall be construed as being beyond the jurisdiction of the parliament of Canada. I thought in fairness to the minister I ought to mention this point and seek to anticipate anything that he might have to say.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Mr. Chairman, I propose to move an amendment to clause 1. I know that the Minister of Justice will characterize my action in this regard as particularizing; yet I believe that there are some rights which should be included in the present bill which are not included. I believe that individuals in Canada should have the right to move from one area to another and the right to live within any area within the confines of their own country. Surely such a right is fundamental to the happiness and well-being of Canadian citizens to live in a free society. These rights are not accorded to citizens all over the world. Perhaps there are times in our own country when we have felt that these rights were not accorded to our own citizens. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Fort William:
That the following paragraph, to be designated paragraph (c) be added after the present paragraph (b):
"The right of the individual to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of Canada." and that the remaining paragraphs be relettered accordingly.


Edmund Davie Fulton: We are obviously rehearsing a series of movements that remind me somewhat of a ballet. Every amendment now being introduced was brought forward in the special committee where my hon. friends sought to introduce all these bills of particulars and where on each occasion the good sense of the majority of the committee prevailed and the arguments of common sense also prevailed and the amendments were rejected.
I sometimes wonder what, in the minds of my hon. friends opposite, is the use of referring things to a committee because they go to committees, they have the fullest discussion, my hon. friends lose the argument, their points are established not to be valid and they come back here and go through the same thing all over again. They seem to establish a sort of pas de deux between the special committee on the one hand and the committee of the whole on the other with every move an artificial and automatic reaction in this chamber no matter what had taken place in the special committee. We now seem to have to go through the same process again.


Mr. Creslohl:: Does the minister mean to imply that members of the house who are not members of such committees have no rights to discuss these amendments?


Edmund Davie Fulton: No, not at all. I would be taking quite a different position if my hon. friend, not having been a member of the committee, or not having read the proceedings which are available to him, had, because of his lack of knowledge of what had taken place in the committee, been moving these amendments. That is not the situation. My hon. friend is not moving the amendments. The same people who moved them in committee are just-


Lester Bowles Pearson: They are not allowed to?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am not saying that.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is what you are trying to say.


Edmund Davie Fulton: No, no. My hon. friend, the Leader of the Opposition, should not get so exercised. All I am doing is pointing out the absurdity of what is taking place.


Lester Bowles Pearson: About exercising our rights.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Am I not allowed to exercise my freedom of speech? Have I not freedom of speech to point out just how ridiculous the members of the opposition are? My hon. friends opposite obviously do not like this. They do not like being exposed. I am not surprised if they do not like it, but I have a perfect right to expose them. I am not going for a moment to deny them their right to do this. It is very entertaining. Ballets are entertaining, even although the movement is artificial. Ballets are very entertaining, and I am sure the whole committee is being vastly entertained at what we see going on. All I am trying to do is to indicate the full extent of what is going on so my other colleagues in the committee can appreciate fully, as I do, exactly what is taking place.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Now that we have had that lecture, let us get on with the bill.


Edmund Davie Fulton: With respect to the amendment now moved, here again we get into a bill of particulars. What my hon. friends are now trying to write into the bill of rights is a very particular and special attribute of citizenship which, of course, if it is important to assert, should be asserted in the Canadian Citizenship Act. But this particular attribute of citizenship, the right to freedom of movement and of residence within the borders of Canada has, as I see it, no place in a general bill of rights. A general bill of rights provides that every individual has the 79951-0-470$
Human Rights
right to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property. Now, if he has the right to security of the person does my hon. friend think that that is not sufficiently broad to give him liberty of movement? How can you interfere with his liberty of movement except by interfering with the security of the person? You are going to have to stop him; you are going to have to place him under some restraint to prevent him from moving freely. I ask my hon. friends opposite whether they do not agree with that?


Paul Joseph James Martin: We do not.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Well, in what respect? How, then, can you stop him from moving freely unless you place him personally under some restraint?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I will deal with it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I wish the hon. member would deal with it now.


Paul Joseph James Martin: You make your speech and I shall be very happy to deal with it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: We are in committee; I thought perhaps we could have the proper process in committee.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I want to give the minister a lecture first.


Edmund Davie Fulton: All right; then, if my hon. friend is not prepared to answer my question, I will simply say that silence indicates assent. It is, of course, obvious that you cannot interfere with somebody's freedom of movement unless you place a restraint upon his person, and in that respect you have to interfere with the security of his person. Or, if you did not do that, then you would be interfering with him in a way outlawed by clause 2 of the bill which prohibits the arbitrary detention or imprisonment of any person, so that you see already in the bill the general right of the individual to have these attributes. It is covered now. If you want to cover it specifically, if you want to particularize, then, as I say, the place to do that is in the particular statute, in the Canadian Citizenship Act. If you want to write down the specific attributes, list all the attributes of citizenship, they should be put into the Canadian Citizenship Act.
But I should like to raise one other specific question, bearing in mind that this bill as drawn applies to all individuals in Canada, citizens and non-citizens, I am not quite sure whether my hon. friend wishes to provide at this stage that all those individuals have the right of freedom of movement and of residence, including those who may not be law-

Human Rights
fully landed in Canada. I am not at all sure, when my hon. friends stop to consider it, they will not say that they go much too far in what they are trying to write in here. That is why I say it should be properly written into the Canadian Citizenship Act where we could see exactly how far we do want to go in spelling out these individual attributes of citizenship.
But, Mr. Chairman, I feel I have taken too much time, but this is an exercise that my hon. friends opposite apparently want to go through here. They are apparently ready to repeat everything that was said in committee, and if that is their desire they will find us co-operative. We are not anxious to rush this bill through the house at all.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, the minister has given us a little lecture in his best ministerial manner, during which he has likened this discussion of the bill of rights to a ballet dance in which he no doubt fancied himself as the prima ballerina. In the discussion of the bill of rights he has suggested that because we were unsuccessful in making certain changes in the bill in committee we should be debarred from the privilege of re-introducing them in committee of the whole,-


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am not suggesting you be debarred at all.


Lester Bowles Pearson: -and trying to convince the committee of the whole and give a second chance to improve the bill. When this is attempted the minister makes fun of members on this side and says, of course, if someone who was not on the committee had done it, it would be all right, but how dare a member of the committee who was unsuccessful in getting this bill changed in committee bring forward amendments in committee of the whole? Then, he has trotted forth his old argument about particulars. The only particulars that make any impression on the minister in respect of this bill are those which the government has selected for itself. To them the argument does not apply.
In this connection it is interesting to read from the Prime Minister's speech in the House of Commons in 1947 because it deals with this question. It is the speech to which the Prime Minister himself has referred so often, and only this afternoon when he was giving us on this side his lecture because he thought we had changed our position over the years and had shown some signs of improvement. The Prime Minister has not shown any signs of improvement because on May 16, 1947 he said, as reported at page 3152 of Hansard, that if he had a chance to write a bill of rights:

The bill of rights I had drafted would have provided-
He said a lot of other things about the bill, but I will quote just one sentence:
The bill of rights I had drafted would have provided the assurance to Canadians, without regard to race or creed, of the following freedoms:
And this is one of the freedoms we have just been talking about and which the minister has been arguing against as being ridiculous. But the Prime Minister would have put in his bill in 1947:
Freedom from wrongful interference by the state; and by that I mean freedom from unreasonable interference with person, home, reputation, activities and property of the individual.
What was a desirable objective of the Prime Minister in 1947 now becomes ridiculous in terms of a bill of rights of 1960.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Not at all, Mr. Chairman. The interesting thing about this point is that my hon. friends opposite are so obsessed with the form of words that they themselves have devised that they refuse to recognize that the bill of rights covers all of these things as it is drawn at the present time.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask the minister if he would accept that form of words put forward by the Prime Minister in 1947?


Edmund Davie Fulton: We had all these things in mind when we went to work on a draft bill of rights and we drafted a bill of rights that covered them.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, just so that the minister will not think that the opposition does not have precedents other than the bill of rights, I would remind him that if he will look at the draft bill of rights submitted by the Ontario bar association and prepared in February, he will see there is a provision in that draft bill of rights which is consistent with this particular recommendation. The minister forgets that this is not merely an academic proposal, that there were situations in this country about which some hon. gentlemen complained. The Minister of Justice was not among those.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Nor were you-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Nor was I, and I
stated that in the committee. He was among those who supported the government, as did the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I have stated categorically, as did the Leader of the Opposition, that in retrospect that was not the kind of act that was in keeping with a bill of rights or with a legal system that sought to protect them. We must avoid these things. The hon. gentlemen seemingly do not have the courage on occasion to acknowledge that they frequently do make

mistakes. When someone is prepared to avow the fact they find that a most unusual course.
We in the Liberal opposition, based upon the declaration of human rights, based upon the recommendation of the Canadian Bar Association, based upon our own experience in this country and experience in other countries, believe this is an important right, and we think that the government's refusal to include it can only mean that they have a limited conception of what a bill of rights is intended to mean.


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I point out, Mr. Chairman, that it is encouraging to see the extent of the conversion of hon. gentlemen opposite after 22 years. For 22 years they would have nothing to do with passing a bill of rights but now they have become converts to such an extent that they want to write a bill of rights that, first, will be a bill of particulars and, second, a bill of rights that would not even be subject to the ordinary restraints to which Canadian citizens themselves would agree they should be subjected. Such is the zeal of these recent converts.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Why oppose your own bill?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Let me point out, Mr. Chairman, because if my hon. friends opposite will indicate their readiness to listen to a serious argument I should like to make one-


Paul Theodore Hellyer: We would if we could hear one.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am quite sure the hon. member who made that particular interruption would not recognize one if he did hear it.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I will have the chance when the hon. member for Essex East speaks.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It has been agreed that all individuals in Canada should enjoy certain rights subject to the ordinary limitation that they are liable to be deprived of them by due process of law. If you did not have such a restraint in the bill it will be appreciated that you could not even put a person in prison notwithstanding that he had been properly convicted of a criminal offence.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Oh, my goodness, surely my hon. friend is not serious when he says that.


Edmund Davie Fulton: If the bill of rights were to confer an unlimited right to security of the person-


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


Edmund Davie Fulton: Gladly.


Paul Joseph James Martin: When he provides in the bill a declaration as to freedom of the press does that mean that the laws of defamation do not still apply?
Human Rights


Edmund Davie Fulton: Of course it does not.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Why would the position in this particular context be any different?


Edmund Davie Fulton: We discussed the matter of freedom in the committe and freedom does not mean licence. In the earlier subparagraphs (a) and (b) we are talking about rights, and we have conferred deliberately by subparagraph (a) the right of the individual to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property. If we stopped there those would be absolute rights because there would be no words of limitation. Therefore it is necessary for us to go on and provide these words, "and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law", which means that a person who would otherwise have an absolute right to liberty and security of the person is nevertheless liable to be deprived of that right if, for instance, he is convicted of a criminal offence by due process of law and therefore properly sentenced to confinement in jail.
But having accepted that approach, and my hon. friends opposite have accepted it because they have not attempted to change it and could not since it would not be possible to argue otherwise, they now seek to insert additional rights not subject to the restraint that persons are liable to be deprived of them by due process of law. You will observe, Mr. Chairman, that the right now sought to be included by this amendment is an absolute right, the right of the individual to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of Canada, an absolute and unlimited right not subject to being taken away even by due process of law.
This is one of the reasons why I object to all these attempts by my hon. friends to introduce these particulars in a place in the bill of rights after the general subclause (a) which makes it clear that the rights therein provided are to be enjoyed subject to the likelihood of being deprived of them by due process of law. It is not responsible legislation to seek to confer, as these amendments do, absolute rights in a form which would place them beyond the reach even of the ordinary processes of law. If you confer an absolute right to freedom of movement you have conferred a right to enjoy that freedom without being liable to interference even by due process of law. This is just one other way in which the amendment is unacceptable.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, the minister, of course, has the right to speak as often as he does and I am not complaining about it.


An hon. Member:: You should not.

Human Rights


William Heward Grafftey: You are very condescending.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I thank hon. gentlemen who are so desirous of passing this bill of rights for allowing the fullest and most unhampered discussion. The people of Canada will learn that every time we say something, while discussing the bill of rights, and that hon. gentlemen do not agree with, they make it impossible for discussion to continue.


William Heward Grafftey: Nonsense.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend says "nonsense" but he hears a catcall right now. May I simply say to the Minister of Justice, that when he says that this particular right which is sought to be incorporated by the amendment and which we have moved is not subject to due process of law and is an absolute right, I must indicate that my hon. friend is the Minister of Justice. He does not occupy the same position as do private members of the house or even his own colleagues. He is the custodian of our law. He is presumed to know and to be the protector of our law, and when he says, as he has now said in the discussion of this bill, that this amendment is not qualified by any existing law he is stating something which he knows is not a fact.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is not what I stated.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend said that we were giving an absolute right.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is what I said.


Paul Joseph James Martin: He said that because we were not including the phrase "due process of law" we, by any course that would be taken, were giving something that amounted to licence, something that is not protected. The only rights that we are providing, including the rights I mentioned a moment ago, are all subject to existing law. The amendment does not mean that an individual who has committed a crime shall be allowed to leave the country and to return without facing a charge against him for the crime he has committed. Of course the ordinary law operates. This does not deal with that aspect of the problem, and my hon. friend has surely strained his argument to the point where it is beyond reasonable proportions.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Why was it necessary, then, to insert the phrase "due process of law" in the earlier paragraph?
Amendment (Mr. Batten) negatived: Yeas, 27; nays, 88.

(Translation):


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Chairman, I wish to suggest an amendment to clause 1 which would add a right that we consider most important and, indeed, fundamental, though everyone recognizes today that we can exercise that right at will. I refer to the right to leave the country and return.
Over the last ten years, Canada has admitted over a million immigrants who have become excellent Canadian citizens. In many cases, I was informed that those new Canadians had some difficulty in leaving Canada to visit relatives or friends, in Europe or elsewhere, because our citizenship legislation contained no provision guaranteeing that a Canadian citizen who leaves the country has a right to return.
It is not a matter of creating new rights. We are trying to dress up a bill of rights which was brought before us in a very shabby condition, and trying to make it as effective an instrument as possible. In my view, there are a number of rights which we now enjoy in Canada and which we consider important that should be spelled out in this bill of rights. If it is true that there exists in Canada a climate of freedom, why not show it by mentioning in this bill that in Canada, we enjoy the right to leave the country and return?
Therefore, Mr. Chairman-
(Text):
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Essex East:
That clause 1 be amended as follows:
That the following paragraph, to be designated paragraph (c) be added after the present paragraph (b) :
"The right of the Canadian citizen to leave the country and to return to the country." and that the remaining paragraphs be re-lettered accordingly.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, I think this amendment is a good one. A number of instances have come to the attention of hon. members which would indicate that the discrimination mentioned in this amendment has taken place in years gone by. I feel, therefore, we should spell out the right of a Canadian citizen to leave the country and to return to his country and I agree that the minister should accept it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I point out two or three things quickly in connection with this amendment. In order to save the time of the committee may I point out that the discussion in committee in connection with this amendment will be found starting at page 627 and following of the evidence.
The three points, very briefly, are, first, that with this form of amendment you introduce a discriminatory provision into the

bill of rights itself. The bill of rights is applicable to all individuals in Canada. My hon. friend's amendment applies only to Canadian citizens, so I think this would be introducing a discriminatory feature into a non-discriminatory bill of rights. Second, the bill deals with rights in Canada. My hon. friend's amendment deals, in one part, with rights that cannot arise in any practical sense whatever unless the person is outside of Canada, because the right to return does not arise in a practical sense until a person is outside our borders.
Again, Mr. Chairman, this is a bill of particulars which, in this case especially, is sought to be made applicable only to the Canadian citizen and not to all individuals who are covered under our bill of rights. This clearly demonstrates that this kind of particular should be spelled out in a citizenship act, and not in a bill of rights.


Leon David Crestohl: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman. A moment ago a remark was made that I enjoyed too many rights. It is understood that we are now debating a bill of rights for Canadians, and I said we should be a little more patient. The hon. member for Lake St. John then had the temerity to say that I already enjoyed too many rights in Canada. He, as a member of the government, had no right to make such a statement and I call upon the Minister of Justice or the Prime Minister to repudiate that member at once for making that statement.


Jacques Flynn: May I say on the question of privilege that the hon. member has mentioned the Minister of Justice, but I do not believe he has any connection with the question of privilege. I shall give an opportunity to the hon. member for Lake St. John to comment on the question of privilege.
(Translation):


Mr. Parizeau:: Mr. Chairman, I do not think I mentioned anyone in particular. I said that we already had too many rights at the present time. Therefore, if the hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Crestohl) feels that I have offended him, I say that I made no mention of him nor of any other member. I simply said that we already enjoy too many rights. (Text):


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say that the hon. member for Cartier, against whom these remarks were attributed-


Jacques Flynn: Order. The hon. member for Essex East must accept the statement made by the hon. member for Lake St. John that these remarks were not addressed to the hon. member for Cartier, and I consider the incident closed.
Human Rights


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, as I understood the hon. member for Lake St. John, he said that his remarks were addressed to all members of the committee in general. I say it is just as much out of order to make the statement in this committee that the members of parliament generally enjoy too many rights as it is to direct it to any hon. member in particular. I think the hon. member who made that statement is in fact in contempt of the house.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Hazen Robert Argue: I think the hon. member should withdraw that kind of remark. I think it is most unparliamentary, most unbecoming and it is particularly unbecoming when we are dealing with a bill of rights.


Jacques Flynn: I think the hon. member has exaggerated the incident. There may be several interpretations put on the statement. If it had been addressed in particular to the hon. member for Cartier I realize that there would be a question of privilege. But the hon. member for Lake St. John said that it was a remark addressed generally and there are several interpretations one can apply, so I will consider the incident closed.
Amendment (Mr. Deschatelets) negatived: Nays 76; Yeas 27.


Hubert Badanai: Mr. Chairman, the amendment I am about to move has to do with the right to nationality. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Humber-St. George's:
That the following paragraph be added after the present paragraph (b):
''The right of nationality and the right to change nationality."
and that the remaining paragraphs be re-lettered accordingly.
The right to nationality actually is a recognition of the natural desire of every human being to enjoy the association of family and home, and of course the right to change his nationality. It is simply the completion of the right of a person who has found a new home to join in full in the fellowship of the family which occupies that home.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, for purposes of identification this amendment can be identified as article XV of the universal declaration of human rights, the discussion of which took place at page 633 of the report of the proceedings before the special committee on human rights and fundamental freedoms. For the reasons given at that time, but particularly for the reason that I still fail to see how Canadian law can confer upon anybody the right to acquire another nationality, I am unable to accept the amendment.

Human Rights


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Justice is making the same argument again. This amendment is proposed by the hon. member for Fort William, who is himself a pretty good example of what those who come to Canada and accept membership in this nation can do and are contributing to this country. The hon. member for Fort William was born in Italy, has served his community the city of Fort William as mayor for a long time, and is now a very ardent, industrious and constructive member of this house. Therefore, it is appropriate that he should move this particular amendment.
The hon. member for Cartier who rose a few minutes ago is likewise one of those men whose family came from Europe, sought asylum and sanctuary and the opportunity of making their way in this country. They are the embodiment of what we are seeking to establish in a right that is recognized now in the domestic law of many European countries, and affirmed in the declaration on human rights.
Mr. Chairman, there are individuals who are what are called "heimatloss", who are without nationality, and who in some countries are denied the opportunity of nationality. There are people who come to this country from certain areas of the world who are sometimes unaware that once they have lived in this country for the prescribed period and have qualified in other respects they can become Canadian citizens. This right will not only serve to bring home this fact to such people; it will not only remove the matter of "heimatloss" in some particular situations; it will do something that will enable this country to assert vis-a-vis certain other countries the supremacy of our law in respect of people who are resident within our borders.
In Italy, in Japan and in certain other European nations the laws of the land do not allow a person to abandon his nationality. A person might come from one of those countries to Canada, might live here more than five years and become a Canadian citizen, yet according to the law of his country of origin he continues to be a national of his country of origin.
What we are asserting here, then, first of all, is the right of nationality, a right which was taken up by the man who proposed this amendment, and the right of the Canadian citizen if he so wishes to change his nationality. That is a basic right. It is a right that is not a particular, as the Minister of Justice said, any more than some of the other particularizations which he himself embodied in this bill before it reached this committee. It is not any more of a particularization than the

principles put forward by the Prime Minister and embodied in one of our amendments that was voted down and referred to by the Leader of the Opposition as one of the objectives stated by the Prime Minister. It is a right that should be included in this bill of rights and there has been no satisfactory answer by the Minister of Justice to the amendment.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I will give one further answer. The right to have nationality in Canada is conferred by the Canadian Citizenship Act and it exists there. All those who come to our country, no matter what may be the law of the country from which they come, enjoy that right. That exists now for Canadians on this side of the house as for Canadians on the other side of the house, all of whom have made valuable contributions, who may have come from other countries. We have them in our own ranks. The rights of acquisition of nationality is contained in the citizenship act.
I can only repeat my answer to the other parts of the amendment, and I am sorry if I do not carry conviction with the hon. member, but I cannot see how any national bill of rights can be prepared to say that the laws of Canada can provide the right to acquire the nationality of another country. That might be a proper principle to put in a universal declaration of rights but it does not seem to me appropriate to put in a national bill because our law cannot confer the right to acquire the nationality of another country.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It seems to me that the minister has overlooked another situation, precisely the situation referred to by the hon. member for Essex East, that there are certain countries that do deny to their citizens the right to alienate their nationality for another nationality.


Edmund Davie Fulton: But our law gives them the right to acquire ours.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps the minister
would allow me to continue. I have not taken up very much time during this debate. We have never done that in this country, but there is nothing in our law to guarantee that as a right coming under our law whatsoever and it does seem to me that the amendment which has been offered by the hon. member for Fort William is putting something substantive into this bill for perhaps the first time because everything else in it is declared to be rights that have existed. Now this is a right that does not exist in any Canadian law at the present time. There just is no law in Canada which denies the right to alienate our nationality but there is nothing that says we have the right to do it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The citizenship act.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, the citizenship act says nothing about the rights of Canadians to become Frenchmen or Germans or Japanese.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Of course it could not.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister was told by my hon. friend from Essex East that in certain countries they refuse to their natives the right to alienate their nationality. We do not refuse that right, but we do not expressly state that it is a right and my hon. friend in his amendment is expressly stating it is a right and the hope that in a really free country it will be recognized as a right, and for that reason it would seem to me that this would add additional substance to the bill.
Then there is the other consideration that all this bill is doing is saying it is hereby recognized and declared that in Canada there have existed and shall continue to exist. One of the rights that does exist in Canada under the citizenship act of which my hon. friend from Essex East was the father in this house is the right of persons who are admitted for settlement in this country to become citizens under certain conditions carefully defined. That is one of the most precious rights we offer to the people in this country, and why should we not put it in this bill of rights?


Leon David Crestohl: I think I can draw the attention of the minister to another reason why this amendment should be accepted. It is quite conceivable that at some time in the future the citizenship act might be repealed. Does the minister know, for example, there are countries in the world which do not grant citizenship to any others except those who are native born? It is conceivable that at some time some government here might decide to follow the line of reasoning of those other countries which do not grant citizenship to newcomers to their land and that is why I say that if such a government in the future gets such a viewpoint and decides to repeal the citizenship act there is nothing in our rights in Canada that will give arrivals in Canada the right to have citizenship, that precious right. To avoid such a danger I think this amendment does represent a right to which every newcomer to Canada should be entitled.
While I am on my feet I should like to say to the minister that when examining an amendment he should examine it with a view of generosity rather than niggardliness. If there is some basis for an amendment it does not matter if it is particularized a little. I think the spirit of this bill is to extend whatever rights are conceivable even if they are in the form of particularizations and therefore I appeal to the minister to
Human Rights
look on these amendments generally like a minister of justice should and give every possible favourable consideration to them.
I am sure the minister speaking from the very lofty position he occupies will not for a moment pretend that all the wisdom and all the knowledge and all the interpretation is with him. Surely he will agree that there is some capacity, some thinking, some reasoning power, some understanding of human rights on this side of the house. I do not think he should lightly set aside these amendments because they are the work of serious men, made by serious people, by thinking people not without some knowledge and experience. This is not necessarily a part measure. This is a bill on human rights which affects every member in this house and in the country and therefore I appeal to the minister to look upon these amendments in as generous a way as possible.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I should like to ask the mover of the amendment a question suggested to me by the Joyce case in Britain. Some members may remember that Joyce, known as Lord Haw Haw, was brought back to Britain after the war and convicted and hanged for treason despite the fact that he had gone through the German citizenship courts and become a German citizen. There was a long discussion of that question of nationality at that time and as I understand it the British crown claimed that he was not in a position to eliminate his nationality. I just wondered in view of that particular case, for example, whether the hon. member who proposed this particular amendment had considered the possibility that it would mean that Canada, for example, would be precluded from trying for treason someone who might have Canadian citizenship and then had moved to another country, say an enemy country. It is not hard for us to envisage the country being an enemy and we would forfeit our rights to try this person by putting in this particular change.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The case which the hon. member has mentioned concerned a man named Joyce who tried to divest himself of his British nationality in time of war. If I remember the case the British government said he could not do that because there was a state of war, and they acted under the defence of the realm act. Joyce offered the defence that he was not a British subject because he had taken Irish nationality previously.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, with deference to the Leader of the Opposition, were not these the facts? He was travelling and maintained a British passport and therefore,

Human Rights
continuing to have a British passport, Britain owed to him certain rights, namely the right of continued protection. Because he held a British passport he could not avow another citizenship even though he contended that he was not of British citizenship. The House of Lords decided-one judge dissenting as I recall it-that anyone carrying a British passport must be presumed to be asking for the protection of the British crown and having that passport placed himself in the position of being subject to the law of treason.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, perhaps because the Prime Minister has stated part of the case I may be permitted to participate in this discussion. At that time in Britain there was no such thing as a law of nationality. There was merely the matter of status. People residing there and owing allegiance to the British monarch were British subjects. It was not until 1947, when we passed the Canadian Citizenship Act declaring in section 26 that a Canadian citizen is a British subject, that our act was followed later by the enactment of a nationality act in United Kingdom. Both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition are partly right, but I did want to add those few words to the discussion.
Amendment (Mr. Badanai) negatived: Yeas, 26; nays, 83.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Mr. Chairman, I wish to move another amendment to clause 1. This amendment deals with the position of the family in Canadian society. I believe that the family is one of the essential constituents of our society. I know that the position of the family is mentioned in the fourth line of the first paragraph of the preamble but I feel that although it is mentioned here it should be again mentioned in the body of the bill.
I know, too, that the amendment which I am going to move is also a part of the universal declaration but I do not see that that derogates from its value. I also know that I moved this amendment in the committee but again I think I still have the right to move it in this committee and to ask that it be given consideration. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Port William:
That the following paragraph to be designated paragraph (c) be added after the present paragraph (b):
"The right of the family to protection by society and the state as the natural and fundamental group unit."
and that the remaining paragraphs be re-lettered accordingly.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a word in support of this amendment but before doing so I should like to say that I listened with interest as I am sure

the committee did last evening and again today to the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont who substantiated the basis of this amendment in the speech which he delivered on clause 1.
I am somewhat surprised that there would not be included in the bill a statement covering the amendment other than that statement which is now contained in the preamble. The committee will realize at once that the family is the basis of our society. It is upon the family that Canadians rely as the basis of the community. In all parts of Canada that is so. I am sure I will be pardoned if I make particular reference to what is contained in the civil code of Quebec with reference to certain rights concerning the family. If this bill is to be a truly national bill, as the Minister of Justice has repeatedly stated, surely there should be some reference in the operative part of this measure to the family as a unit.
In certain parts of our country parochial life has a very important part to play. As a matter of fact it is the family that makes up the parish. This is not exclusive to the province of Quebec but applies to many other provinces if not all. It would seem to me that a truly national bill of rights should contain some reference to the protection of the family. If this bill is to be what the government wants it to be and what the Minister of Justice has repeatedly said it should be, then it strikes me that there should be an insertion in clause 1 which would protect the rights of the family.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I should say for the purpose of identification that this is an adaptation of subclause 3 of article 16 of the universal declaration. Some of the discussion on this subject will be found at page 653 and the following pages of the report of the special committee.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Page 647.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Page 647 and the following pages of that report. I do not think there is very much I can add to what I said there. I wish to assure the hon. member for Cartier that I have considered all these suggested amendments extremely carefully. The fact that the majority of them have been rejected up to this point does not mean they have not been considered carefully nor does it mean that the contents thereof have not been recognized as desirable in themselves. But the reason for rejection is any one of the reasons I have given to date, that they have the right without limitation, or that it is in my mind an undesirable particularization, or some such reason.
Here we come to a case where again the rights of the family, the basic laws involved

there, particularly the context mentioned by the hon. member, are wholly or almost entirely in the provincial field, the laws governing the relation between wife and husband, parents and children and so on. That kind of family law is, I think it will be agreed, entirely provincial and not federal, so that in that aspect we are dealing with something which is exclusively provincial and not within our jurisdiction.
When you come to the question of the rights of the family in the more abstract sense, then, in my view, having considered it most carefully, the rights of the family are simply the sum total of the rights enjoyed by each individual who makes up the family, and there is no right upon which anyone may rely for the protection of his family which is not a right which attaches to him as an individual, whether it be the right of the security of the person or the enjoyment of property. If one of his children's liberties is interfered with, then the head of the family protects the right of the child, but he does it by a personal action, an action with respect to the right of the individual's security of the person. Therefore, as I say, the rights of the family in this sense are simply the sum total of all the rights of the individual who make up the family, and we have anticipated the amendment therefore by our bill of rights itself which confers upon the individual the inalienable right to life, liberty, security of the person, and enjoyment of property, and the amendment therefore adds nothing but is merely dealing with a subject that comes within provincial jurisdiction.
Amendment (Mr. Batten) negatived: Yeas, 28; nays, 70.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Mai-sonneuve-Rosemont, that clause one be amended as follows:
That the following paragraph, to be designated paragraph (c), be added after the present paragraph (b):
"The right of the individual of equal access to public service".
And that the remaining paragraphs be re-lettered accordingly.
This is a right that is embodied in the constitutions of six European nations, and was there prior to the declaration on human rights. It is a declaration that is contained in the declaration on human rights. Because of that latter fact, in view of the position taken by the Minister of Justice in the committee when we began discussing in general terms the bill before the committee, and prior to the introduction of amendments, it would seem to deny to the minister in all logic any justification for any resistance to this amendment.
Human Rights
In this free country of ours there is no doubt that, subject to citizenship, every one has the right to serve as the representative of the people in this parliament and in our legislatures and, subject to other considerations, in our municipal bodies. But every one in Canada does not recognize that that right exists.
Since the war we have brought almost two million new people to this country, and they are in themselves justification of the policies of government that made it possible for them to come here. They are making a contribution just as those of us who were born here and just as those who preceded them and who became citizens of our country by the procedure of naturalization. They have the right, and we want them to know they have the right, not only to public service in the legislature or in parliament, but to public service as servants of the crown in the government service.
We have in this country a civil service commission, and we recognize the merit system, and correctly so; but there are certain aspects of our public service in which the civil service commission does not operate, and this particular right would apply to that situation. A woman who was born in Czechoslovakia, in Poland, in Rumania, in France, or in any European nation, and whose background and conditions at home are such as to cause her to take what might be regarded as menial employment, should not be denied that opportunity simply because she belongs to a particular race or because her national origin was such that-


Mr. Brunsden:: Is she denied it?


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend knows perfectly well that in certain departments of government right now it is not possible for certain people to get jobs which are at the disposal of agencies other than the civil service commission. That applies-


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: Did it apply before 1957?


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friends always go back to before 1957. We are now dealing with the bill of rights that seeks to give to Canadians the rights which are not denied them elsewhere. Whatever the situation was before, if such situations do exist, now is the opportunity to correct them; but it is not only that, Mr. Chairman,-


Mr. Ricard:: Has the hon. member some actual facts?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I refer not only to the public service in the government, not only the right to take one's place in a legislative body but to the public service

Human Rights
generally under the laws of our country. We do know-and anyone who lives in a community as I do where there are thousands of new Canadians knows-that there are situations which are covered by this very proposed right, and it applies not only to the legislature, not only to work in the public service, but to publice service of a broader aspect.
The acceptance of this amendment, which for many people is a very basic right, a basic necessity, a basic opportunity, would be a way to meet their particular problem. When the Minister of Justice tells us that one of the objectives is to have this bill of rights available in the schools so that everybody can see it and be inspired by the freedom that exists in this country I would think that this would be a right that the minister would readily accept. Think of a right like this declared under a law passed by the parliament of Canada and the effect of that on a young boy born in Italy, born in Germany, born in Czechoslovakia, born in any of the European nations. It would be an inspiration to such young people as perhaps no other right in this particular series of amendments or in the bill itself would.
I urge that this amendment be accepted. We will not forget that there have been situations in Canada where, in spite of men being elected to public office, they were not allowed to take their seats. We have the case of Mr. Hart, a Jewish gentleman in another province. We have the case of William Lyon Mackenzie, denied three times the right to take his seat in the legislative assembly of Upper Canada. These things may not happen now but we are not legislating for now, we are legislating for the future.
When I look at the hon. member for Hum-boldt-Melfort, who played a notable part in the work of the committee, I remember the words he uttered from his seat in the back row on the occasion of his first speech in the house, when he mentioned standing in front of the monument of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, proud that he was a member of this house.
I have never forgotten that moving statement of the hon. member. There are other members and other potential members like the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort. Here is an opportunity for parliament directed by the government to give that inspiration. I so move, Mr. Chairman.
Amendment (Mr. Martin, Essex East) negatived: Yeas, 25; nays, 78.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Chairman, there is in the universal declaration of human rights a clause which outlines the right of any individual to social security and to economic,
[Mr. Martin (Essex East) .3
social and cultural rights which are indispensable for the development of one's personality. When we realize that these rights have been in this declaration for a period of nearly ten years I think that if we are to adopt a bill of rights in the year 1960 we should add to many of the ancient rights enumerated in Bill No. C-79 some of these rights which we now enjoy but to which I think we should give recognition in order that people may be protected because we are dealing here in terms of the future.
I wish to point out that in the postwar period the constitutions and the declarations of rights of the fourth French republic, the Italian republic and the Federal Republic of Germany have been amended to incorporate some new rights such as the right to work, the right to a living wage, the right to rest and leisure, the right to all levels of education and the right to equal opportunities for advancement regardless of race, religion or national origin.
Having this in mind, Mr. Chairman, I think we should take the opportunity at this time to include in the bill of rights the right of the individual to social security and his entitlement to realize the economic, social and cultural activities indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Essex East:
That clause 1 be amended as follows:
That the following paragraph, to be designated paragraph (c), be added after the present paragraph (b):
"The right of the individual to social security and his entitlement to realize the economic, social and cultural activities indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality." and that the remaining paragraphs be relettered accordingly.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, this amendment has been identified by the mover as article 22 of the United Nations declaration and the discussion of the amendment will be found starting at page 659 of the proceedings of the special committee, including the reasons I gave there after consideration as to why we were not able to accept the amendment. In all of these matters I have said that the objectives in themselves are worthy and worth while but they are, as anyone who reads the United Nations declaration will appreciate, in large part merely declarations of objectives which it would be desirable to achieve but which, of course, can only be accomplished by specific measures in the countries which accept these as their objectives.
In a large measure, this has been accepted as the objective in Canada and this government has made substantial improvement to the various social security measures that are on the statute books of this country, and

taken other measures which improve or guarantee or form a solid base for the standard of living in this country. Again I say, for these reasons, it is not appropriate or necessary for it to be included in a bill of rights and I am, therefore, unable to recommend its acceptance as a part of this bill.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am surprised and disappointed that the minister is not in a position to give sympathetic consideration to the inclusion of this amendment, and amendments of this type in the bill of rights. His argument against them, and we heard it earlier in the evening, was that they dealt with social and economic rights which are desirable, he says, as an objective, but not appropriate for inclusion in a bill of this kind.
This is the general attitude, I take it, which he takes toward amendments of this nature. My surprise at that attitude results from the fact that when the Prime Minister discussed this subject on May 16, 1947, he discussed what he would put in a bill of rights and he dealt with this particular matter. He first pointed out that he would set up a committee-this was in 1947-which would include representatives from the various provinces. This committee would act in cooperation with the provinces. Then he dealt with, and I am quoting again from page 3152 of Hansard for 1947, the political rights that he would include in his proposed bill. This was to be a bill of particulars of the political rights that would be included and which would be worked out in co-operation with the provinces. I quote the Prime Minister, who went on to say this:
Those were the political freedoms that I would have placed in a bill of rights. In addition to those, there would, of course, be social freedoms, if I may call them such,.-
What kind of social freedoms? The Prime Minister explained what he had in mind:
-assuring educational, property and social security rights.
This is what we are requesting. This afternoon the Prime Minister said that this bill included all that he had worked for for 14 years, so I am asking the minister now to help out the Prime Minister and put this kind of amendment in this bill so that the Prime Minister's words of this afternoon will be implemented, at least to this extent.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, it is very interesting to watch the actions of the opposition on this occasion. For the last 15 years they have consistently opposed any bill of rights. They did everything possible to ridicule, disparage any action in this regard. Indeed as late as 1958 they were still in the same position. I sat here today and listened to this vast transformation, this
Human Rights
complete conversion, which is something that has resulted from the fact that public opinion has placed them in a position where, in order to secure forgiveness for their years of opposition, they now indulge in a conversion that would bring into existence every declaration that has ever been made, including the universal declaration of human rights which received the support of the United Nations but which they would not bring before parliament, not under any circumstances.
When we asked them over and over again to bring the universal declaration of human rights before parliament these protectors of the rights of the provinces, which they had transgressed so often, said we cannot do this; if we were to bring the universal declaration of human rights before parliament, we would be invading provincial jurisdiction. The Leader of the Opposition cannot get away from those words I read earlier, and which I shall read once more, uttered on September 5, 1958. There was an interruption on my part, which is as follows:
I do not want to interrupt the hon. gentleman, but he has brought up something there that only he can answer. Having accepted the universal declaration of human rights in the United Nations which, I think I am right in saying, was submitted by most other democratic countries in the world to their respective legislatures, why was that declaration of human freedoms not submitted to the parliament of Canada?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the declaration of human rights of the United Nations has been accepted by Canada.


John George Diefenbaker: No.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, I think I am right that the declaration has been accepted. If I am wrong I will be corrected. It took some years, but I think it eventually was accepted in Canada. In any event, our hesitation in respect of this declaration,-
The words "our hesitation" refer to the government of that day of which he was a member.
-and I know something about this, arose from the fact that it included matters that were strictly within provincial jurisdiction. Therefore it could not be accepted with propriety by the Canadian delegation without having all of the provinces accept at least those parts of it which entrenched on provincial jurisdiction, and that was not done by all the provinces.
This evening, we have had a parade of amendments, one after the other, abstracted in whole or in part from the universal declaration of human rights. They paid no attention to that universal declaration from 1948 to 1957. They had it embalmed in their hearts, and now they suddenly develop a love, an affection for the provisions of the universal declaration which for nine long years they refused to bring before parliament because the various portions thereof invaded provincial jurisdiction. What is their

Human Rights
alibi? Their alibi is, why did you, in the opposition, not introduce a resolution bringing it into effect?


Mr, Pickersgill:: Would the Prime Minister permit a question?


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Of course, the Prime Minister does not want a question.


John George Diefenbaker: As soon as the hon. member bobs up, I know I have struck oil. I have read the universal declaration of human rights, and I can predict the various sections that are still to come, because there are some more which have not been dealt with as yet.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is right.


John George Diefenbaker: There is one which says that no one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor attacks upon his honour and reputation; everyone has the right to protection of the law against such interference or attack. That is article No. 12.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, that matter has already been dealt with and under the rules of the house we cannot retrace decisions of this committee.


Jacques Flynn: I think it is relevant to indicate the source of amendments in general, and to indicate that the present one was found somewhere-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Under the rules of the house he cannot refer to it.


John George Diefenbaker: I am simply referring to the record.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, the Prime Minister is now referring to a decision already made by the committee on this specific point. It is a well known rule of debate that once the decision has been made it cannot be opened by the committee. That was a rule which was invoked by the Prime Minister against me very recently.


John George Diefenbaker: I am not referring to a vote which took place. I am simply outlining the situation so far as the universal declaration of human rights is concerned and setting out the various articles in that declaration that for all those years the former government, of which the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Essex East were outstanding members, did nothing about.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman, which relates to the rules.


Jacques Flynn: Do I understand the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate to raise a point of order because the Prime Minister was referring to something which happened in the special committee?


John Whitney Pickersgill: My point of order was that the Prime Minister was seeking to revive a debate on a subject which had already been decided upon this evening by the committee, namely an amendment based upon and, as the Minister of Justice pointed out, having direct bearing upon a particular section of the universal declaration of human rights.


Jacques Flynn: I understand the point of order, but I must say I do not accept it because the rule is that one cannot discuss or criticize a decision of a committee.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Or reopen the subject.


Jacques Flynn: But one can certainly refer to evidence given in committee, and this has been done generally on both sides of the house up till now. Therefore I think it would be most unfair if we were not to permit the Prime Minister to do so.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, on the point of order, the words of the Prime Minister must have escaped your notice because the Prime Minister when he referred to the resolution, not remembering it has been in the form of an amendment already dealt with and which is also an article in the declaration on human rights, began to criticize the opposition


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -because he said we were going to discuss this resolution and bring it forward. He also was criticizing any suggestion that that kind of right in the universal declaration on human rights should be embodied in this precious document which he believes belongs entirely to him.
I suggest that the Prime Minister was talking on a resolution which had been dealt with by this committee, and by the most clear interpretation of our rules the Prime Minister is clearly out of order.


Jacques Flynn: To which resolution
brought forward in this committee is the hon. member referring?


Paul Joseph James Martin: This declaration of right in the universal declaration on human rights was embodied in an amendment, which was introduced about an hour ago. It was voted down by this overwhelming majority that confronts us. The Prime Minister referred to this amendment, not recalling that that right had already been embodied in the amendment. He began to

suggest that we should anticipate an amendment being brought forward by this opposition party and embodying this right. He was therefore commenting on its merits in relation to this bill and was clearly out of order. I would ask you, Mr. Chairman, with great respect, to consider my point of order in that light.


Jacques Flynn: There are two arguments raised by the hon. member for Essex East. One is that the Prime Minister was commenting on the declaration made either in the committee or here, but to me that is not a good reason for raising a point of order. The second argument is whether one can revive a debate. The Prime Minister was simply saying that the amendment before this committee was of a similar nature to those which had already been moved. At least, that is the way I understood it, and if I am wrong I will of course intervene in the debate, but for the time being I think we should let the Prime Minister continue.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I was simply referring to the fact that these various articles in the universal declaration of human rights, which were regarded as improper to be brought before the House of Commons because they would infringe on provincial rights and would require the consent of the provinces before they could be brought before parliament, are now brought forward by the opposition.
I shall not refer to the sections further because I do not want to arouse the hon. gentlemen. They realize that one after the other has been taken holus-bolus in certain cases, in other cases abstracted from this universal declaration of human rights which they allowed to remain in abeyance, indeed refused to bring before parliament, through all the years that they were in power from 1948 to 1957. Now suddenly when we bring before the House of Commons a bill of rights these particular sections which were so detrimental to the constitutional background of Canada, and therefore improper to be dealt with in parliament, become the cornerstone of their argument. The series of amendments which were introduced in every case but one were included in this universal declaration to which I have referred in some particular.
Mr. Chairman, death bed repentances always lead to forgiveness. Here they are after all those years, having done everything they could conceivably do year after year to deny Canadians a bill of rights, now endeavouring to place themselves in the position of being the custodian of these rights which for so long they have denied Canadians.
I will say no more for the moment about that matter. It has been over and over again
Human Rights
the same course of action. Hon. members opposite started off by saying that the bill of rights contained nothing which would be beneficial. Others argued that the result would be uncertainty and a great deal of litigation because the effect would be that existing statutes which deny these principles would be interfered with or abrogated or indeed repealed. Alternatively they argued that the effect would be that any judge interpreting existing statutes which deny these freedoms will from now on be required to look at this bill of rights and, in the light of the fact that it declares that these fundamental freedoms have always existed, will interpret statutes now existing as though this particular bill of rights and its principles had always been on the statute books of this country.
I can see a great deal of interpretation that will come before the courts. I am not going to detail this unless I am put in a position that anyone demands to know the number of times that these fundamental freedoms were abrogated, diminished, trodden down during the period between 1945 and 1952. I simply say this: the purpose of this bill of rights is to secure for Canadians those things that are of the essence of freedom and within the jurisdiction of the federal parliament. Several of the matters which were brought before the committee by way of amendments are matters which peculiarly fall within the jurisdiction of the provinces. My hope is that with regard to these questions which are within provincial jurisdiction, an agreement may be worked out which ultimately will achieve a bill of rights which will bring into existence those additional freedoms that peculiarly arise within the jurisdiction of the provincial legislatures, or which are in part matters of federal and provincial jurisdiction.
When I hear hon. gentlemen opposite talking about how the constitution should be amended and how easily it could be amended, and how the provinces would immediately give up their rights in this regard, I might point out that the Leader of the Opposition in 1958-


Paul Joseph James Martin: On a point of order. The Prime Minister is not speaking to the amendment.


An hon. Member:: Oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Minister of National Revenue does not seem to be too pleased with this point of order, but as a good parliamentarian he knows perfectly well that the Prime Minister is out of order. The Prime Minister is now discussing ways and means of embodying this bill of rights in the

Human Rights
constitution with the collaboration and consent of the provinces. The amendment before us is related to the question of social security and we are asking that this amendment concerning the right of social security be incorporated in this bill of rights and we agree it would have to be dealt with within the competence of the federal parliament. That is covered in the preamble. This reference to the provinces and to the meetings in September and October which were initiated by the premier of the province of Quebec has nothing whatever to do with the amendment-


Edmund Davie Fulton: Who is out of order now?


Paul Joseph James Martin: -and I would ask you, Mr. Chairman, even at this late hour, to remind the Minister of Justice that his intervention is without value and that the Prime Minister is clearly out of order.


Jacques Flynn: I must say that a good deal of latitude has been accorded to both sides. The way I follow the argument of the Prime Minister was that this amendment covered matters which come under provincial jurisdiction. The hon. member for Essex East explained his view, but I do not think it is up to the Chair to decide who is right or wrong. On the second point, I understood the Prime Minister was saying that matters coming under provincial jurisdiction could be included in a national bill of rights but that the procedure in adopting such a bill was difficult. I may say that at that point the discussion was not strictly relevant, but at least we could see where it was leading. Perhaps I might advise the Prime Minister that he was entering into a phase which has already been covered on clause 1 of the bill.


John George Diefenbaker: I return to the amendment and the amendment concerns the right of the individual to social security and his entitlement to realize the economic, social and cultural activities indispensable to his dignity and the free development of his personality. Those words are very similar to article 22 of the universal declaration. Indeed, when hon. gentlemen opposite talk about clothing these freedoms in grandiloquent language I would point out that article 22 succeeds rather better in that connection than the amendment. Article 22 reads as follows:
Everyone, as a member of society has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each state of the organization and and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.
That was one of those rights which a few years ago could not be brought in in a declaration before parliament because of the fact

that a portion of that declaration comes within provincial jurisdiction. That is why I point out that one after another of these amendments, in the array in which they have been produced, fall singularly within provincial jurisdiction. I raise that in addition to the points made by the Minister of Justice.
In so far as securing provincial agreement to these things is concerned, when we do and if we do then indeed it will be possible to have a bill of rights which will achieve, not only political rights under the jurisdiction of the national government but political and social matters within the jurisdiction of both. When I hear it said over and over again how easy it would be to attain the objective of provincial consent to a bill of rights, may I point out that the Leader of the Opposition on September 5, 1958 when he was not sure whether he was going to be in favour of a bill of rights or against a bill of rights-


An hon. Member:: Is that still on the amendment?


John George Diefenbaker: -when as yet his mind had not been made up, made this statement as reported at pages 4648 and 4649 of Hansard of that date. The hon. gentleman referred to the present Prime Minister in the second session of 1951 when the house was discussing a bill to amend the Supreme Court Act, and then he went on to say:
He brought the matter up again in 1952 with a draft bill which could be used for this purpose. Then, leaving out the intervening years when there was some discussion in the house but nothing new of significance, we find that in 1955 the present Prime Minister again placed his draft bill before the house and requested that it should be submitted to the supreme court for an opinion on constitutionality.
I did that because it had within it social rights in addition to political rights within the meaning of section 92 of the British North America Act and because of that fact and because the Liberal party at that time took the stand that it was not within the competence of parliament to have a bill of rights I asked that there should be a submission of this particular bill of rights, that a draft bill of rights be prepared by the joint committee of both houses of parliament which was set up and that this be submitted to the Supreme Court of Canada to ascertain which of these rights was within the legislative competence of parliament. In other words, we wanted to find out. We had been held up. We had been restrained. We had been prevented from securing a bill of rights because of the universal answer given by hon. members supporting the then government, with the exception of the two hon. members I mentioned this afternoon, that anything of this

nature would contravene the rights of provincial jurisdiction. The Leader of the Opposition went on to say:
During that discussion and I recall that debate, the then minister of justice, Mr. Garson, used these words:
The Leader of the Opposition then quoted the words of Mr. Garson as follows:
The introduction of this deceptively simple but rather emotional issue into such a complex field creates a problem which-is an extremely difficult one. It is the problem of superimposing a bill of rights, after the United States fashion, upon the federal constitution of Canada, whose main feature, inherited from the constitution of Great Britain, is the sovereignty of its legislative bodies-
Still quoting the words of Mr. Garson, the Leader of the Opposition went on to say:
Now this feat-has never yet been accomplished in any country in the world. I might point out just one of its difficulties. It is one thing to withhold from the provincial legislative bodies legislative powers when the constitution of a country is originally formed. It is quite a different thing to withdraw from the provinces 88 years later provincial legislative powers on the strength of which at least the original provinces could argue that they entered confederation.
The Leader of the Opposition then continued, referring again to the remarks of Mr. Garson:
He said that this was involved in the issue before the house, the effect of this kind of action, whatever form it may take, upon provincial jurisdiction.
That has been the attitude through the years. Then the hon. member for Essex East said that I had the feeling that the Conservative party believed that only this government could prepare and draft a bill of rights which would meet the needs of Canada. That is not our attitude. We asked that this matter be placed before a committee-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Only because we insisted on it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Two years ago hon. members opposite refused to put it before a committee.


John George Diefenbaker: Even though what the hon. member says is not a fact, may I say this. If it was at the request of the opposition, it indicates our willingness to do everything possible to bring about a united front on this issue. That has been our attitude; that has been our desire, in order to assure that a bill of rights would be prepared by this parliament and when passed by this parliament would be effective within the federal jurisdiction. That is what we have tried to do. That has been our purpose. Let me now point out the attitude of the opposition as revealed in the last few hours.
Human Rights


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. I call your attention to the fact that the Prime Minister is not talking on the amendment and has not been for some time. We will expect the same latitude from you in general discussion as you are giving the Prime Minister.


Jacques Flynn: I am sure the Leader of the Opposition did not mean to say that hon.
members on his side have not up to now enjoyed the same latitude?


Edmund Davie Fulton: That was a most improper remark that the hon. gentleman made.


Jacques Flynn: Perhaps I may be permitted to point out to the Leader of the Opposition that in discussing the amendment-


Lester Bowles Pearson: He has not been discussing it.


Jacques Flynn: -the Prime Minister has referred to the implications of the constitution-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: He has been giving us a lecture in history.


Mr. Monleilh (Perlh):: Stop interrupting.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Keep quiet.


Jacques Flynn: -and in view of the nature of the amendment I considered that it was fair to let the Prime Minister argue his point as to the constitutional implications of the amendment-


Lester Bowles Pearson: We will have the same right.


Jacques Flynn: -as I have done with regard to hon. members on this side.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Very well, carry on.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, may I say that this amendment is part and parcel of a series that have been introduced this evening the purpose of which is to endeavour to detract from the bill of rights and to leave the pretence that-


Mr. Martin (Essex Easl):: Mr. Chairman, I am rising on a point of order-


John George Diefenbaker: -to leave the pretence that-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I would ask you to call the Prime Minister to order.


An hon. Member:: Caesar.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Prime Minister may be head of the government but in this committee he is just an ordinary member.

Human Rights


Michael Starr: You are becoming a Liberal dictator.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Why do you not stop trying to be a petty tyrant?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Prime Minister has no right to impute motives to any hon. member.


John Whitney Pickersgill: None whatever.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. gentleman has done that just now. I would ask you, Mr. Chairman, to request the Prime Minister at once to withdraw the imputation in accordance with the rules of this house.


William Heward Grafftey: Dictator. Demagogue.


Jacques Flynn: I did not hear the Prime Minister impute any motive to any hon. member-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Jacques Flynn: Order.


Mr. Nowlan:: Put them in their place.


Lionel Chevrier: What do you call that? Closure?


Mr. Habel:: How dare you say "put them in their place"?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Chair is the neutral arbiter in this house.


Jacques Flynn: To say that the amendment is intended to detract from the bill does not impute motives to any hon. member in particular.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Amendments are moved by specific members.


Jacques Flynn: The rule covers the situation of imputing a motive to one hon. member but to say that a certain amendment or
a certain statement is intended to detract from a given thing is not imputing motives. Therefore I must rule the point of order as invalid.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Now that it is eleven o'clock, Mr. Chairman, I ask you to take a look at the precise words of the Prime Minister to see whether the point of order I have raised is correct.


John William Kucherepa: You have no respect for the Chair.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Hon. members opposite are quite a good example of the need for a bill of rights, and with this vast majority sitting behind the Prime Minister-


Donald MacInnis: Who is imputing motives now?


Some hon. Members:: Eleven o'clock.


Jacques Flynn: Order. I shall hear the hon. member when the committee meets again. It being after eleven o'clock, shall I rise, report progress and request leave to sit again?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I inquire what we will be doing tomorrow?


Gordon Minto Churchill: We will carry on with debate tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, and when completed we will follow with the estimates of the Department of National Defence.


[Stage Direction]
It being three minutes after eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to special order.