1960-07-05

RESEARCH

[Stage Direction]
Second report of special committee on research-Mr. Murphy.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. John Pallet! (Peel) moved:
That the special committee on broadcasting appointed June 21, 1960, be composed of Miss Aitken, Mrs. Casselman, Messrs. Asselin, Bourbon-nais, Brassard (Lapointe), Caron, Chown, Creaghan, Danforth, Dorion, Drouin, Fairfield, Fisher, Forgie, Fortin, Halpenny, Keays, Lambert, MacEwan, Mac-quarrie, McCleave, McGrath, McIntosh, McQuillan, Pickersgill, Pratt, Pugh, Richard (Ottawa East), Robichaud, Rouleau, Simpson, Smith (Calgary South), Smith (Simcoe North), Tremblay and Webb.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether the government is going ahead with expenditures on Bomarc bases notwithstanding the fact that the right hon. gentleman said yesterday that the full potential of these weapons cannot be achieved without nuclear warheads, and that no agreement had been reached for the acquisition of these warheads.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: There is no change in government policy in that regard.



REPORTED INVESTIGATION INTO ALLEGED IRREGULARITIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: I should like to ask the Minister of National Defence whether he can give the house any information on the story reportedly carried on the Canadian Press wires this morning to the effect that the Department of National Defence has had to call in the R.C.M.P. to investigate certain irregularities in one of the branches of the department.
79951-0-361i


Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I was informed some time ago that there were certain alleged irregularities in the interservice equivalents board, and I asked the R.C.M.P. to investigate the correctness of those allegations. I have not received a report from the R.C.M.P. yet.



INQUIRY AS TO RECOMMENDATION RESPECTING NUCLEAR WARHEADS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Has the Minister of National Defence recommended to the government that Bomarc missiles for the R.C.A.F. should be equipped with nuclear warheads?


George Randolph Pearkes: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister made a perfectly clear statement of government policy yesterday regarding the use of nuclear weapons. That statement can be easily understood by anybody of average intelligence. There is, therefore, no need for me to make any further comment.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, there is a certain implication in what the minister has said that I cannot accept at face value, but I wonder whether the minister would accept a supplementary question. Does the minister agree that the authority for the use of nuclear weapons by Canadian forces must come from the President of the United States?


George Randolph Pearkes: Again I can only repeat that the Prime Minister covered that point yesterday, and there is no need for me to make any further comment on the matter.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker-


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I have another supplementary question. I thought the Leader of the Opposition had one. I should like to ask the Minister of National Defence whether in fact he has changed his opinion since he stated to the special committee on defence expenditures-


Mr. Fleming (Eglinton):: Order.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: -that his understanding was that authority had to come from the President of the United States?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the hon. member wishes to debate the matter I suggest that he leave it until the proper time.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Donald Methuen Fleming: And learn to sit down when the Speaker is on his feet.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Chevrier:: Don't lose your temper.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Defence as a man of average intelligence? Will the minister confirm-


An hon. Member:: Don't be so modest.


Mr. Fulton:: You are one of the three wise men.


Lester Bowles Pearson: -what he is reported to have said outside the chamber, that when the Honest John ground to ground missile is supplied, which will be a year from now, our forces will then have a nuclear capability?


George Randolph Pearkes: Mr. Speaker, the Honest John is capable of firing a nuclear warhead. We expect that the Honest John will be supplied to the Canadian forces in Europe in about a year's time.


Lester Bowles Pearson: With a nuclear warhead? [Later:]


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I have one further supplementary question for the Minister of National Defence which may help to clear up some of the confusion.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Does the minister believe that within the year the policy of atomic John will have an honest capability?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.



HUMAN RIGHTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question based on a newspaper report that three negro tourists from Akron, Ohio, were refused accommodation by the Windsor hotel at Buck-horn, Ontario.
In view of the urgent need to remove all forms of racial discrimination, and for the sake of Canada's good name in international relations, would the minister consider making inquiries into this report; and is he prepared to use his good offices to the end that future incidents of this nature may be avoided?


John George Diefenbaker: First may I say that in so far as discrimination of this or any other kind

is concerned, it can only be deplored and condemned in the strongest terms. However, this type of thing-the denial of public accommodation-is a matter which falls within the jurisdiction of the provincial legislatures. The province in question has, I recall, a statute which provides penalties in cases such as this. I am also informed, but only through the press, that the department of the attorney general of Ontario is having the matter fully investigated.
I repeat what I said at the beginning, that there is nothing more serious in the interpretation given to the manner in which freedom is exercised in any country than the denial of public accommodation to people on the basis of colour.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask the Prime Minister whether this form of discrimination would be prevented by the proposed bill of rights if it became law?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. As we are debating that matter, and since the question is a request for an expression of opinion on the bill which the house now has under consideration and with regard to which hon. members are freely expressing their views, perhaps it can be deferred until we are again considering the bill in question.



COLUMBIA RIVER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Taylor (Vancouver-Burrard):: should like to ask a question of the Minister of Justice. Can the minister make any statement in connection with his visit to British Columbia over the week end to discuss problems relating to the Columbia river?


Edmund Davie Fulton: think my answer should be confined to a resume of the agreed statement which was made at the conclusion of the meeting and which, after recording the names of those who attended, reported the fact that the representatives of the two governments had reached agreement on the position to be taken at the next meeting with the United States negotiators, which meeting is to be held in Ottawa on the 14th and 15th of this month.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister a supplementary question. Is there now any possibility of an agreement being signed on this matter between the two governments before the end of this session?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to determine when the session will

end. We hope to have a report from the two governments as soon as possible. The actual occurrence can only be determined when we know on what date this session will end.



PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. I ask it because many trade unions and many hon. members are confused about the government's position concerning pension vesting.
In view of the fact that when replying to representations made by the hon. member for Welland and the hon. member for Kootenay West for the recognition of the principles of pension vesting the Minister of Finance, as reported at page 4207 of Hansard of May 24, said:
The fact is that parliament has no jurisdiction to provide for vesting of pension rights. This is obviously a matter falling within the sphere of property and civil rights and is a matter strictly under provincial jurisdiction.
And in view of the fact that according to press reports the Minister of National Revenue assured a union committee that his department intends to carry out a thorough investigation of companies which are claiming federal tax exemptions on pension plans which in the past had not been carefully policed, in order to clarify the situation would the minister inform the house whether the government recognizes the principle of pension vesting and now intends to give favourable consideration to representations made by hon. members of this house and representatives of organized labour.


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, that was a tremendously long preamble. I do not believe that is a question which should be properly answered on orders of the day. As was pointed out in one paragraph of the preamble, a copy of which I received only a moment ago because I was in another place this morning, the Minister of Finance, the Prime Minister and myself met with Mr. Don Gillies and other representatives of the mine, mill and smelter workers union and had long consultations with him.
During that time it was suggested that there are certain weaknesses in the administration of the Income Tax Act with respect to pensions. I said that this matter would be investigated. Otherwise, as a matter of course, other than the income tax aspects of it this is a matter requiring further investigation,
Inquiries of the Ministry and I understand one is being conducted by a committee of the Ontario legislature. We will administer the Income Tax Act. I do not think anything further should be said at this time.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the statement made this morning to the united automobile workers that the government would give consideration to the establishment of a royal commission to inquire into conditions that now confront that industry, will the Prime Minister give immediate consideration to the establishment of a committee of this house or to an arrangement for joint participation with the committee already established in the other place, so that the elected representatives of the people might give study to this very serious situation?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I think we will deal with the questions in the order in which they were dealt with today. The representatives of the united automobile workers made their representations this morning, and asked among other things that a royal commission be appointed or alternatively that the tariff commission make a survey similar to that made in 1934. That is the matter which at the moment will receive immediate consideration.
With respect to the question of setting up any further committees of the house at this point in the session, I am sure that even if I were to suggest it the suggestion would be met with the same objections, in multiplied form, that I have been hearing in recent days.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask a supplementary question, in view of the last remark by the Prime Minister. Is he not aware that there are members who regard this problem as so serious that they would prefer to sit here all summer?


Mr. Starr:: You want to mess it up.


An hon. Member:: Show-off.


John George Diefenbaker: Whatever the seriousness of the problem may be, may I say that representatives of the workers asked for a certain course of action, and that is what is being considered.

Inquiries of the Ministry TRADE



REPORTED NEGOTIATIONS FOR IMPORT OF OIL AND MOTOR CARS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hubert Badanai (Fort William):: I have a -question for the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Can the minister inform the house whether negotiations for the import from the Soviet union of the most unlikely commodities Canada needs, namely 2 million bushels of oil-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Hubert Badanai: two million barrels of oil and 3,000 motor cars are still going on?


Mr. Ricard:: You did not have time to study the question.


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Will the hon. member please repeat the question? I missed part of it.


Hubert Badanai: Can the minister inform the house whether negotiations for the import from the Soviet union of the most unlikely commodities Canada needs, namely 2 million barrels of oil and 3,000 motor cars, are still going on?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I have no knowledge other than from press reports that businessmen are interested in importing those articles. A completely false report has appeared in certain papers and journals in this country to the effect that I made some deal with the Russians with regard to oil. The only specific commodity mentioned in the year-long negotiations with the Russians was wheat.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask the minister when the house is going to have an opportunity to discuss the Russian trade treaty?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Just a soon as it is reported from the other house.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Pori Arihur):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. Is the minister in a position to comment upon a report carried in the Toronto Telegram that the so-called divorce co-respondent who appeared on "Close-Up" has stated that the information she gave in great detail on her twilight activities was faked for a fee of $150 from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation?


George Clyde Nowlan: I heard something of this as I came into the house a moment ago. Together with the Prime Minister, I have been meeting a delegation of the U.A.W. this morning; therefore I have not had time to do my reading of that great family journal. But if the report was carried in the Telegram as the result of an interview between a responsible staff member of the Telegram and the person in question-that is, if the person was found-and if the report is correct, then it certainly will be investigated very thoroughly by the C.B.C. I can assure the house that this matter was checked upon by responsible senior officials of the C.B.C. in Ottawa and they were assured that the story was authentic.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Has the minister received a resolution from the federation of Ontario mayors and reeves asking for a probe into the serious unemployment condition in this country?


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Laurier is most persistent in his question, but again I must disappoint him by saying no.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask a supplementary question. In view of the condition as it exists in Canada, with the extent of which I am sure the minister is familiar, will the minister give consideration to the establishment of a committee composed of representatives of industry, management, labour and business to discuss and determine the causes of unemployment?


Michael Starr: The government realizes its responsibility in many fields, and when it devises ways and means of coping with these problems announcements will be made accordingly.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask
a supplementary question. In view of the importance of unemployment in our country, does the Minister of Labour not think the time has come when his answers to questions should not be of an evasive kind?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The hon. member should look back at the answers he used to give.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's question is not evasive-


An hon. Member:: It is out of order.


Mr. Speaker:: -but it is provocative and contrary to the rules.



COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harold Edward Winch: May I ask the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the report in the Globe and Mail this morning to the effect that in the parliament of South Africa there has been an indication that at the commonwealth prime ministers' conference in London an interpretation was given by the prime ministers of the United Kingdom, Canada and Australia that in the event of South Africa becoming a republic they would give a lead in retaining it in the British commonwealth?


John George Diefenbaker: If the house will allow me to make a general reference preliminary to answering that question, I will do so. The question came before the prime ministers' conference as to whether assurance would be given that in the event that South Africa by a referendum were to set up a republic, the admission of South Africa to the commonwealth might be accepted. That question was dealt with in the report I gave in the house, in which I stated that the particular paragraph in the communique of the conference was to this effect:
. .. that membership in the commonwealth is not a formality. These words speak for themselves. They make clear that the prime ministers were not prepared to give an advance assurance that South Africa might remain a member of the commonwealth in the event that a decision was made to adopt the status of a republic. Therefore, the important point is that if a change of status does take place as a result of the referendum, the consent of the other commonwealth governments will be required as a pre-condition of continued membership.
Then I added these words:
Again I emphasize the fact that this was accepted by all.
In so far as the question is concerned, may I say most unequivocably that nothing was said by me which would indicate or justify the conclusion that any advance acceptance was assured in the event that a referendum vote was in favour of the setting up of a republic.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erharl Regier (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: should like to ask a question of the Minister
Inquiries of the Ministry of Finance. In the light of his reply of yesterday to the hon. member for Welland, may I ask whether the foreign exchange control fund has been used within recent months in order to sustain the value of the Canadian dollar at an artificially high level in relationship to the United States dollar?


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, Mr. Speaker.



NATURAL GAS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. J. Mcllrailh (Ottawa West):: I
should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Has his attention been drawn to an Associated Press dispatch from Washington indicating that the United States federal power commission proposes to attempt to regulate natural gas prices to the producers in Alberta? If his attention has been drawn to the article, what position does the Canadian government propose to take in this matter?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I have not seen the article to which the hon. member refers, but its subject matter was drawn to my attention many weeks ago. It was based on the report to the federal power commission, of an official who was reporting to the commission with regard to certain export licences from Canada that were under consideration. Whether the matter has gone any further than just that report of an official, I do not know. The most recent information I have is that the federal power commission has not made a determination on the application before it. Until that is done it would be impossible to determine whether there would be any effect whatsoever on Canadian sources of supply or on the amount of money charged at the wellhead or things of that nature.


George James McIlraith: I should like to ask a supplementary question. Has the Canadian government any representative following the hearings in Washington in order to see whether any attempt is being made by the United States authority to regulate Canadian producers?


Gordon Minto Churchill: The subject is being followed closely by the national energy board. I have discussed the matter with the chairman. We have stationed at Washington an official of the Department of Trade and Commerce who is an expert on matters of this nature, and he is watching this situation closely.


George James McIlraith: If I may, I should like to ask a further supplementary question, Mr. HOUSE OF COMMONS
Human Rights
Speaker. I understand that Premier Manning of Alberta has protested the suggestion by the United States authority, or at least the press report so indicates. Will the minister consider having the Canadian government protest what is attempted to be done if an investigation of the facts warrants it?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Most certainly, Mr. Speaker, if it proceeds further than the stage I mentioned earlier, namely a report of an official to the federal power commission.



OLYMPIC GAMES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. L. McFarlane (Kootenay East):: should like to address a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of press reports in western papers, I should like to know the position of the federal government in deciding the location of the 1968 Olympic games. According to the news item, Fernie has not been mentioned as a possible ideal location for this event. Apparently erroneous reports are being circulated in British Columbia that Garibaldi park has been decided on by the federal government.


Hon. J. W. Monleilh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the federal government has nothing whatsoever to do with selecting the site for the 1968 Olympic games.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Oh, oh.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Mason Fisher: I should like to ask the Secretary of State whether he will check on a question. I have been waiting for some weeks for an answer to question No. 394. The reason I ask him to do so is that I asked the same question two years ago, on a different date, and obtained the material much more quickly.



HUMAN RIGHTS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, July 4, consideration of the motion of Mr. Diefen-baker for second reading of Bill No. C-79, to provide for the recognition and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Winch.
Mr. R. S. MacLellan (Inverness-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, when the house rose last evening I was commenting that it seemed to me the bill of rights was divided into two separate sections. In the first place, clause 2 of the bill contains a declaration of the fundamental rights of Canadians as individuals; clause 3 of the bill sets forth the sanctions or the operative part of the bill.
As to the declaration of the rights of Canadians as individuals, it has been said that all the rights that are listed here already exist in the law of Canada. That is true. Indeed, the clause itself says that these rights have always existed in Canadian law. I submit that is the reason the clause "declares" and does not "enact" these freedoms. I think it would have been folly, when these rights and freedoms are already recognized in our law and have been for many years, to have attempted in this statute to enact them.
As to clause 3 of the bill, that establishes a watchdog over parliament and the judiciary to guarantee that these freedoms are not overrun by statutes of this parliament. From now on any man who wants to find out what his rights are need not be a constitutional lawyer or a political scientist able to turn up the cases and the precedents which have been built up over the years. Instead he can turn to the bill of rights. At the same time, if any judge or parliamentarian wants to test any act which has come or comes before this house to see whether it abridges our fundamental freedoms and basic rights, he' has only to turn to clause 3 of this bill.
Clause 3 provides that no enactment by statute in the past or in the future shall be applied or construed so as to submit anyone to arbitrary arrest or imprisonment or to authorize or impose inhuman punishment. It provides the right to counsel. All these things may have hitherto existed somewhere in our law, but now they are spread out in this bill for everyone to see.
As far as we as members of parliament are concerned, I think the most important part of the bill is clause 3. From now on we will watch more closely every bill which comes before us, and every act which has been passed will come under the special scrutiny of the public of Canada and the bench who will see that it does not override the fundamental rights and freedoms of Canadians as individuals. It will also ensure that everyone has fair treatment in any contest between the state and himself.
Now, Mr. Speaker, for a few minutes I would like to deal with the prime objection to this bill which has been raised on a constitutional argument. As I understand it, there

are two ways in which the British North America Act could be amended. First, if this bill were to apply not only in this parliament but in every province of Canada, then the provinces would have to join with the dominion in requesting an amendment to the British North America Act. Then the bill as a part of the British North America Act would apply everywhere throughout the nation and in both federal and provincial fields. Or, the British North America Act could be amended under the 1949 amendment, I think it is section 91 (l)(a), since this bill deals only with matters coming within federal authority, by an address of both houses of this parliament to the British parliament.
With regard to an amendment jointly entered into by the dominion and all the provinces, it does not seem to me that we have any right to ask that of the members of other legislatures. We may show leadership to the provinces, and if they wish to do so there is nothing to prevent them from adopting this bill or similar bills in their provincial legislatures. I do not think it is up to us to interfere in their legislatures or to suggest to the provinces what procedures or practices they should follow. We will have shown them here what we think should be the law of Canada, and by doing so we suggest to them that a similar act might commend itself to them.
Mr. Speaker, I think we would be presumptuous if we asked the provincial legislatures to seek an amendment to the British North America Act which would limit the powers and authority of their legislatures when they are now so jealous, and properly so, of the powers of their governments. After all, why should such a bill be placed beyond the reach of the legislatures of Canada? Why should not members of parliament who have brought forward this bill be empowered to repeal it as regards federal matters? This bill has been sponsored by the public of Canada, and I believe the public of Canada wants to retain the right to amend it, to change it, or to repeal it if they see fit to do so.
As to the second method of amending the British North America Act, this parliament could by a joint address ask the British parliament to amend the British North America Act without the consent of the provinces, inasmuch as this statute refers only to matters within federal concern. But what would be the gain from that? We have spoken so many times during this debate of the constitution of Canada. The British North America Act does not constitute the constitution of Canada; it is only that part of the constitution which
Human Rights
delineates the authority of the provinces vis-a-vis the federal authority, limiting the authority of each.
The British North America Act does not contain the whole constitution of Canada. Most of the important parts of our constitution are not written at all; they come to us from the customs and traditions of many years. Much of the most important part of our Canadian constitution is to be found in a hundred statutes spread through the statute books and in many decisions of the courts which define the rights of citizens and of legislative bodies both federal and provincial.
Mr. Speaker, by proposing that we pass Bill No. C-79 we do amend the constitution of Canada. We set forth in writing rights which heretofore did not exist in the same form in any statute. We establish a special statute of interpretation and make it part of our constitution, so that from now on all federal statutes are tested in accordance with this one.
An amendment under section 91 (l)(a) of the British North America Act gives us no more, as far as entrenchment is concerned, than this bill does today. A section 91 (l)(a) enactment can be amended by a joint address on a resolution introduced in this house and passed also in the Senate, with one debate in each chamber. But to repeal this act would require not only a resolution but in addition first, second and third readings in this house, providing for several elaborate debates on the bill. I firmly believe that the only way any federal statute can be entrenched is by the insistence of the public of Canada that it remain the law of Canada. If at any time the Canadian people want to change this bill they are free to do so, and we would not want to have it any other way. But certainly to amend the British North America Act would give this bill no sacrosanct quality which it would not have after passage in this house.
In conclusion I would like to express my compliments to the Prime Minister, inasmuch as the introduction of this bill and this debate are in a way the culmination of a major portion of his life's work. Over many years and during many sessions he has advocated a bill of rights which would set forth for all Canadians everywhere what their rights are. He has always advocated that bills passed by parliament should be subject to special scrutiny to see that the fundamental freedoms of Canadian citizens were not trampled upon. He has always felt that there should be a statute which at least declared what our basic rights as citizens are so that any man who felt aggrieved could go before a court and point to a statute on the books which

Human Rights
guaranteed him certain fundamental freedoms, like his freedom of religion, his freedom of speech, his right of freedom from discrimination because of his race, his national origin or his colour, and his right to retain what is his until he is deprived of it by due process of law.
This is the principle of the bill of rights. It is an overriding statute to which any individual can flee for sanctuary regardless of orders in council, administrative regulations or so-called emergency situations that arise in the hysteria of the moment. It is simply a specific, basic recognition of the principle that society exists for the individual and not the individual for society. And if any man ever wishes to show that he has been wronged, he will in the future be able to rely on a concrete statute which places his rights as a human being and as a citizen in this land beyond question or doubt.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I am sure you will agree with me that in this debate we have listened to a considerable number of constructive and able speeches. Certainly the hon. gentleman who has just resumed his seat has made a speech that deserves the recognition which I give it as being the careful analysis of a serious-minded member who is dedicated, as we all are in this house, to the principles and the concepts of human freedom.
Whether we agree with this bill in the way suggested by its proposer, or whether we seek to improve it along the lines of the suggestions which have been made, notably by the Leader of the Opposition, there can be no doubt that in all parts of this house every hon. member in every political party is firm in the belief that our society, predicated as it is on the existence and continuation of human freedoms, does present to totalitarian countries a unity of understanding and conviction as to the primacy of the individual in relation to the state.
But we cannot agree with the Prime Minister that the measure before the house will, for the first time in Canadian history, recognize in law the freedom of the press. His actual words were:
-this is the first time in Canadian history that freedom of the press is going to be recognized under law.
That is not an accurate statement of the situation. That certainly is not a correct characterization of the effect of this bill; for the fact is that every human right and fundamental freedom with which this particular measure is concerned is now protected by law in this country. There are now in existence effective legal remedies to protect these human rights in Canada. That has been the
[Mr. MacLellan.l
situation, and that will continue to be the situation after this bill becomes law.
What are the facts? We have in this country inherited the British traditions of government and constitutional law. We have thereby inherited the historical safeguards of the subject. What are they? They are, in addition to Magna Carta, the petition of rights, the habeas corpus act, the bill of rights and the act of settlement. Our statute law, more particularly the growing body of judicial decisions, gives security to the individual as no other measure, I believe, can hope to do. This bill will not change that. This bill will not add something to our legal safeguards which does not at present exist. This bill has the value of being a declaration of the convictions of this parliament with regard to human rights and fundamental freedoms, but I submit that in its present form it is no more than that.
I do not deny the value of a declaration by this parliament of something that has long been recognized in our fundamental law and which, particularly in the last decade, has been recognized in this country by our courts and particularly by the Supreme Court of Canada. I am sure the Prime Minister wants this measure to be, in its final form, the most responsible and effective measure possible. In order to achieve that objective, I do hope that an opportunity will be presented in a committee of this house to afford to those who by training and interest are experts in this field an occasion to offer submissions.
Reference has been made by many hon. members in the course of this debate to the work of those who in March, 1959 put in writing in the Canadian Bar Review their views with regard to the bill of rights now before the house. An opportunity should be given to these gentlemen-to Mr. Lederman, to Mr. McWhinney, to Mr. Bowker, to Mr. Louis-Philippe Pigeon, to Professor Bora Laskin, to Professor F. R. Scott, to Mr. Albert
S.	Abel, to Mr. Donaldson, to Mr. Carter, to Mr. Mundell and others-of appearing before this committee and putting forward their views on this measure. We should have an opportunity of examining the deputy minister of justice. We should afford the opportunity to all the organizations which have made representations to the Prime Minister and the government in this matter to appear before the committee. In other words, nothing short of the most careful examination of this bill ought to be afforded, no matter how long that takes; because in years to come we will have confusion and chaos in judicial interpretation, in judicial lawmaking, if this bill does not emerge in a form

as perfect as it is possible for human beings to contrive by the use of words.
I know the deep interest on the part of the Prime Minister in this bill of rights. He and I have been members of this house for a long time, and I do not deny for a moment that his interest in this subject has been one which reflects his own legal training and his own concept of the role of government in society and the importance of freedom in society without which human personality cannot continue to grow and become truly enriched.
But having said that I say to the Prime Minister that this bill is not the best bill that could be brought forward. The hon. gentleman himself, I am sure, would recognize that if he would recall the words which he uttered at the Canadian Bar Association meeting referred to last evening by the hon. member for Edmonton West, when he said that this bill would be introduced at the beginning of this session and that a joint committee of both houses would be set up to give study to its implications and effect.
This bill is deficient not only for those reasons but because of another weakness. I express a prejudice in this area as a common law lawyer. The bill is deficient in terms of its weakness in reflecting the danger of rigid codification. In saying that I pay my respects at once to the civil law lawyers. There is the danger of restriction in trying to put into the document certain existing rights which will be expanded in the light of new situations, as we now know. The rights we talk about today *-certainly economic rights and legal rights too-are not those mainly discussed in the last century. In a quarter of a century from now, in the light of this nuclear age, who is going to deny that there may emerge new situations that will create at least concepts of new rights and new obligations?
This bill deals only with our political liberties and with some of our legal rights. It does not deal with economic liberties. It deals with freedom of the press, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of association, freedom of conscience and freedom of religion. Yes, it deals with all of these things. These freedoms are now guaranteed under the law of this country as a result of the incorporation into our fundamental law of the great charters to which I referred a moment ago, and more particularly the decisions of our courts, notably the Supreme Court of Canada in such instances as the Switzman case, the Saumur case, the Roncarelli case, among others. These cases now have gone far to establish these political freedoms so inherent in our parliamentary system that they cannot
Human Rights
be looked upon as the property of the provinces. One judge has given the obiter dictum that it may even be that this parliament itself could not interfere with these freedoms, although the court has not really pronounced on that subject.
Yes, political freedoms are referred to in this bill, but it is not as a result giving to the citizen a greater security of enjoyment than what is now provided for in the law. Our legal liberties are partly mentioned but not our economic liberties, except for section 2 (a) referring to property. There is no mention nor is there any declaration of the conviction that must stand behind even these newly conceived rights. It may be that it is difficult to put into a charter like this what we mean by economic rights; but at a time when society is evolving and when the political philosophy of every party in this house subscribes to the view of full employment, is it unfair or extravagant to suggest in this twentieth century that we have the right to place alongside our political freedoms, with no less effect, those rights that affect the economic well being of the citizen?
We must not forget that the declaration of human rights to which the Prime Minister attaches so much importance deals in large measure with economic and social matters. The declaration of human rights says that all men have the right to the economic and social discoveries of our age, to the economic and social benefits of our time. The declaration of Philadelphia subscribed to by this country along with all the other United Nations in 1943, declared in as solemn a form as the declaration of independence that the nations that could use their powers and resources to wage war could also use the same powers and resources to provide for economic and social welfare.
I say that a bill of rights is not complete that does not take into account these economic rights. What are they? They are, it is true, tied up in some way with the concept of property, but they go far beyond that. They include such things as the freedom of an employer to hire at rates and under conditions which he may determine. They also include the right of a worker to his job-a proprietary right in his job-and the freedom to strike and to picket within the law, and to bargain collectively. Those are the new recognitions of rights and freedoms which in this day and age cannot be given a secondary place. That was possible in the nineteenth century, but that is not possible today.
Because this bill of rights does not deal with such rights as I see them, it is on that account deficient. Nor does this bill deal with liberty in what one might call its human

Human Rights
rights or egalitarian sense; such things as fair employment practice laws, fair accommodation laws, equal pay for women laws, all laws which emancipate women, the right to election, the right to medical care, the right to disability pensions, and so on. Are we to say that these are not rights? Are we to say that in the objectives we have placed for ourselves we are not to regard these as legitimate aspirations?
They are not absolutes any more than the declaration of political rights and freedoms in this bill can be regarded as absolute. These must be qualified. Freedom of the press is not referred to in the law as an absolute, although in this bill it is referred to as such. Surely in the consideration of the freedom of the press we must take into account that the law has taken in certain qualified safeguards, including the right to take an action for defamation of character, which would be and is a limitation under our law guaranteeing the freedom of the press. And so, Mr. Speaker, the bill is deficient for these reasons. In my judgment an opportunity undoubtedly ought to be given so that we can consider these matters when we get to the committee.
Is it unfair to suggest to the Prime Minister that the bill is somewhat vague and ambiguous in its present form? Are we satisfied, for instance, that the method to which we have resorted in order to incorporate these freedoms is the most effective one? To paraphrase the language of the Prime Minister, we are going to pass a bill that comes within section 91 of the British North America Act. We are not, the right hon. gentleman said, in any way going to interfere with the jurisdiction of the provinces. To that end we are simply passing an act of this parliament, an act with all the ordinary attributes of a bill that might be presented by a government or a private member.
But surely the Prime Minister and all those interested in civil liberties are concerned about the totality of freedom in our country, and not a measure of civil liberties which might be practised in a Canadian railway station, in a uranium plant, or in those areas that come under the exclusive jurisdiction of the dominion. We want to see these freedoms extended and guaranteed all over our country, any place, in any section of our country, and by anyone and for anyone. That is not what this bill does.
We have suggested, first of all through the Leader of the Opposition, that the proper way to bring forward a bill of rights is by embedding it in our constitution. That presupposes an arrangement with the provinces; that presupposes a conference with the provinces and agreement either as to a constitutional amendment through action on the part

of this parliament, or through action by this parliament and by all the legislatures.
The Prime Minister has given no indication that he has endeavoured to try and bring about such an arrangement. It may be that as a result of the study which this committee will give-which I hope it will be able to give-to the bill it will be possible for us even yet to suggest to the government that we ought to deal with this matter comprehensively and with all the legislative jurisdictions which have some responsibility in the preservation of human rights in this country.
There are bills of rights now in Alberta and Saskatchewan. If embodying this idea in the constitution is not acceptable, could we not agree to have a conference with the provinces to discuss these matters; could we not at least make an effort to avoid the divisibility of enjoyment of these rights, so at least there could be parallel declarations by all the provinces affirming their conviction in the general declaration that we make here in this bill? That at least could be attempted.
This bill because of its vague language, such as that contained in clause 2 dealing with the question of property and of due process of law, will, I am sure, provide occasion for much litigation and legal argument. It is regrettable that the bill is limited by being made applicable only at the federal level; for in my opinion these questions of civil liberties should not be treated separately and differently in the various divisions of our country, and I am sure no one, including the Prime Minister, wants to see that kind of impression created or that situation developed.
The bill, of course, has many omissions. For instance, it is not clear in clause 3 what is meant by the phrase "all the acts of the parliament of Canada enacted before or after the commencement of this part". Clause 2 reads:
It is hereby recognized and declared that in Canada there have always existed and shall continue to exist the following human rights.
Then the rights are enumerated. It is not clear that this bill does not in fact in these very words, and particularly those that follow, interfere with provincial matters. Does "Canada" here mean Canada in a geographical sense? I know what the Prime Minister intends. He said in this house it did not; he said this bill was to apply only to matters that came within the competence of the federal government. But the courts, when they come to interpret this bill in relation to other statutes or by itself, will not look at what the Prime Minister said in this house because, under the judicial rules of interpretation, it is not open to any judge, in

order to ascertain the meaning of a statutory word, to make reference to what was said in the debates of parliament or of a legislature. Therefore what the Prime Minister intended will not be applicable or will not assist the judges in arriving at the decisions they will have to make.
There may be something in the argument made by Louis-Philippe Pigeon in the Canadian Bar Review, at page 66, in which he refers to Canada as meaning in the geographical sense. If that interpretation is correct, his conclusion is that this is a violation of section 92 of the British North America Act, and particularly of the property and civil rights clause. If that is the situation, if the language is capable of that interpretation, can we not see at once that trouble is going to ensue in the interpretation of this measure unless this imprecision is corrected? It is for that reason that Mr. David Mundell, Q.C. suggests, among three recommendations that he makes, that not only should this bill be sent to the supreme court for interpretation, but that the language ought to be tightened so that nothing is done in this legislation to interfere with the constitutional powers of the provinces.
The same argument applies to the use of the word "property" in clause 2(a). That is a very important consideration. The Prime Minister says, of course, that what he has in mind is property within the control of the federal parliament, property that does not come within the ambit of the property and civil rights clause in section 92 of the British North America Act. That is what the Prime Minister says and that is the view of all of us in this house. But that will not necessarily be the view of the Supreme Court of Canada or of any other judicial body called upon to interpret this measure. Property and civil rights is a cornerstone of provincial authority in our country. They are as sovereign in the exercise of their competencies under section 92 of the British North America Act as we are in the exercise of our powers under section 91. The trouble that will ensue, that is to say the legal controversy that will develop, let alone the political difficulties that will follow, are so apparent that I would hope that when we do reach the committee stage there will be no difficulty in reconciling the situation.
In my judgment this bill does not modify all pre-existing legislation; at least there is doubt about that. The Prime Minister may have positive views. I am sure that when a court comes to consider a particular grievance and is confronted by a statute such as the Immigration Act and this particular legislation it will decide that because of the general
Human Rights
character of this legislation it must take into consideration and recognize the primacy of an individual statute. Are we to say that as a result of this legislation, for instance, the Lord's Day Act in Canada is going to be repealed? That must be the conclusion if we are to take the view that this bill as it is drawn at the present time will have an overriding effect on all existing inconsistent legislation, or on all future legislation inconsistent with this legislation.


John George Diefenbaker: May I ask a question? In what way is the Lord's Day Act inconsistent with freedom of religion?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Well, my hon. friend-


John George Diefenbaker: I am interested in knowing.


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: -knows that for some people the Lord's Day Act is regarded as a limitation of freedom; for other people it is not. My hon. friend knows that is the case. I am sure his question was not intended as a trap. It has been the case that some people have regarded it as a denial of freedom. There are others who regard it as a proper discipline that must prevail in a society that is free. I am merely asking a legal question based on the Prime Minister's own premise as to the effectiveness of this bill. Does it mean that such a measure has to be repealed as a result of this bill of rights?
Let me go further. Must the Immigration Act now be repealed in its inconsistent provisions? Is it a measure that will be repealed, or is it automatically repealed? Last night we listened to a recital of the restrictive features of the Immigration Act by the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard, who looked upon this measure as a way at long last of extricating the citizen from the restrictive features of that act. I ask the Prime Minister now; once this bill becomes law, assuming it does in its present form, does that mean that the Immigration Act is going to be repealed in so far as inconsistent measures are concerned?
Let us go further. What about the Criminal Code? Will the Criminal Code now be modified with respect, for instance, to its provisions for whipping as a form of declared punishment, having in mind the operative part of this bill? These are points that students of this measure regard as having very practical considerations.


John George Diefenbaker: What section of the bill would apply to the Criminal Code; degrading treatment or torture?.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Well, most of the operative parts.

Human Rights


John George Diefenbaker: Which ones?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Let me make my speech and then the Prime Minister can ask questions.


John George Diefenbaker: If the hon. member will allow me, will he point out which particular portion of the bill of rights would prevent the application of punishment under the Criminal Code?


Paul Joseph James Martin: What about section 3 (b), "impose or authorize the imposition of torture, or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment"? If that is not contrary to the Criminal Code then I do not understand the English language. Let us go further. For instance, does the word "person" in section 3 (c) include witnesses as well as an accused or a complainant or plaintiff? Are witnesses going to have the right to counsel? What does the word "person" mean? If witnesses are not to have a right to counsel under certain circumstances, are we giving full effect to the right to counsel in situations where, either formally or informally, as Mr. Justice Rand said, a witness is being accused?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Would the hon. member not agree that his question is answered by a reading of the applicable words? Section 3 (c) only applies to a person who has been arrested or detained.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend knows perfectly well that can happen to a witness.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Only if he is arrested or detained.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Minister of Justice undoubtedly has read these learned articles. The minister must know that all these points I have mentioned have been discussed, and that concern exists. I am simply raising them now in the hope that the government, either at this stage of our proceedings or in the committee, will deal with these matters effectively.
For instance, let us take section 2. Are we satisfied that we have a clear understanding of what is meant by "due process"? We are all clear as to what "due process" means but, as Mr. Bora Laskin says, it is not sufficient that a man be assured of protection of his person and property under the protection of due process. It is important that we have a clear understanding of what we mean by "due process". Does it mean due process according to law and, if according to law, according to what law; or does it simply mean in this declaratory statement that it is due process according to certain basic standards of justice? That is very important, because if it is the latter then the citizen is not going
IMr. Martin (Essex East).]
to receive the kind of protection which, under statutes and under judicial interpretation, normally attends the meaning of the words "due process".
What do we mean, for instance, in section
2	when we talk of freedom? True, under the law as it now exists, and as it is going to be confirmed and further declared in this bill, we will have freedom of the press, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and association; but are these intended as absolutes in this bill, or are we to take into account, or is a judge to take into account the qualifications that now exist as part of the law? When we talk in this bill, for instance, about trials in public, what does that do to the juvenile delinquents act, where a judge may, under certain circumstances, have a hearing in camera? Is that provision to be done away with? These are questions to which we will certainly have to have some answers.
What is meant, for instance, in section
3	(c) by "other constitutional safeguards"? What are they? Where do these other constitutional safeguards now exist in the law? The fact is that they do not exist in the law. Those are words that have a satisfactory implication when first uttered, but they have no legal substance whatsoever.
I could go on and make other observations with respect to what I regard as weaknesses in the bill. The bill does not in any way provide any method by which its provisions can be implemented. A bill of rights will not do away with conflicts between different persons and groups, nor will it remove the need for compromise with respect to many questions in the operation of our law.
There are many things that this bill could do. The Prime Minister was here last night when the hon. member for Edmonton West spoke. The hon. member spoke of the dangerous implications of administrative decisions, and he paid particular attention to the situation in the United Kingdom. He reminded us of the work of Sir Carleton Allen and particularly of Lord Hewart through his book, "The New Despotism". Does this situation not exist in this country? No one has pointed that out more eloquently or effectively in the past than the Prime Minister.


John George Diefenbaker: Ineffectively when you were in power. We are trying to remove those fears now.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I always gave the Prime Minister careful attention, and whenever he made a submission that I thought was constructive it was generally acted on. But the Prime Minister did not always make constructive suggestions, and

he will be the first to recognize that this is so. If the Prime Minister wishes to egg me on I can go much further in this regard, because I followed with great interest the work of the Prime Minister in connection with the committee that discussed the declaration of human rights and his own particular proposal in 1947 and 1948, under the chairmanship of Mr. Ilsley and Senator Gouin. I know the Prime Minister will have in mind what I am thinking about in that regard, but for the moment perhaps it had better go unnoticed.
The Prime Minister, having spoken of these administrative decisions and their denial of various legal and political freedoms, had an opportunity in this bill to do something about the matter. Why is there no provision in the bill somewhat analogous to the provision adopted two years ago in the United Kingdom and referred to recently by the lord chancellor when he spoke to the bar association of the state of Illinois, and referred to yesterday by the hon. member for Fort William? There could be in Canada as part of this bill a provision such as the United Kingdom now has under the tribunals and inquiries act, whereby a permanent, independent council supervises all government agencies, with special attention being paid to threatened violations. Is that now going to be satisfied by the powers given to the Minister of Justice under section 4 of the bill? The Prime Minister indicates that is so, but surely he is not serious when he nods his head in assent.
Under the bill of last year the Minister of Justice was going to ensure, but under the present bill all he is going to do is ascertain. There is no sanction. All that the Minister of Justice will be required to do will be to examine and see whether any measures have been dealt with that are inconsistent with the general, declared provisions of the proposed bill of rights. There will be no powers given to parliament to cause him to take any steps. In other words there is no sanction and there are no teeth to deal with a situation respecting which certain assignments are given to the Minister of Justice.
In the United Kingdom they go much further. In addition to a public petitions committee, they have recognized the need to supervise administrative or governmental adjudication by means of a tribunal which goes into these matters carefully and is under obligation to take concrete steps. There is need to supervise government regulation and every subordinate lawmaker by means of parliamentary scrutiny or committee. But the
Human Rights
suggested powers given to the Minister of Justice will not in any way deal with the situation.
I therefore say this to the Prime Minister by way of summary. I recognize that as a lawyer he has been interested in this problem for a long time. As he will recall, he raised the matter of a bill of rights when I had the responsibility of introducing the citizenship act. At that time I took the view, from which I now do not stray, that under our common law system, based as it is upon the principle of precedent to precedent, we have a safeguard for our rights that is as effective as anything that is provided for in this bill. Our political freedoms are now provided for in the existing law as interpreted by our courts.
The value of this bill, the Prime Minister and others have said, is in its declaratory character. If we want to give a lesson to new citizens, as was suggested, or if we want to bring home to our young and to the citizens of this country at large the value of our heritage of freedom, we could surely have done it in a declaratory way but in a way that would be more memorable than that which is provided for in the dull words of a statute of this house. We could have sought at least to imitate the language of the great prose writers of the nineteenth century, such as Bentham and Mill, who dedicated their lives and writings to the principle of human liberty. We could have had something like the language of Lincoln that would have made an appeal to the new citizens and the other citizens of our country instead of having this drab, weak, dubious and lacking in precision bill of rights which represents an ideal, an honest purpose and a desirable purpose, but which falls short of the mark for the reasons I have mentioned.


John George Diefenbaker: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I hope this bill will go to a committee so we may be given the opportunity of making it a really respectable and effective document.


John George Diefenbaker: I should like to ask the hon. gentleman whether he would tell the house in what bill of rights anywhere in the world, beginning with the United States bill of rights and including the other 29 countries that have adopted a bill of rights, was the course followed of describing freedom in other than the most simple language, indeed in almost the same language that is adopted here.

Human Rights


Paul Joseph James Martin: I know the Prime Minister asks this 'question because he wants a serious reply.


John George Diefenbaker: I do.


Murdo William Martin: I want to give him one. The Prime Minister knows as well as I that the bill of rights in the United States had its genesis in the declaration of independence.


John George Diefenbaker: No.


Murdo William Martin: Yes, it did. Two years after that declaration came into being there were refinements put in article form, but the basic appealing language of the declaration of independence is referred to by every young American as his credo.


John George Diefenbaker: What about the bill of rights?


Murdo William Martin: You mean our own bill of rights?


John George Diefenbaker: No, the United States bill of rights.


Murdo William Martin: As I say, it became a refinement of the original declaration of independence. I would ask the Prime Minister to look at the words of Magna Carta, the words in the preamble of the act of settlement, or the words of the bill of rights. He will find that they are words that make an appeal. I say this to the Prime Minister. Are we really making an appeal by this bill when we say:
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-
That is a statement to which every man in this house fully subscribes. That kind of language, together with that in sections 1, 2 and so on, is familiar to the hon. gentleman, to other lawyers in this house and to all legislators. However, it certainly will not make its appeal to those who are uninitiated in the jargon and the forms of parliament. The Prime Minister has missed a great opportunity by not himself sitting down, as Lincoln did, and writing memorable words for all generations to remember.


Hon. D. J. Walker (Minisier of Public Works):: 
Lester Bowles Pearson: You will soon be up in the There was nothing but silence, nothing but gallery again.


David James Walker: Nothing was said, however, arrogant silence-


Lester Bowles Pearson: Arrogant silence?


David James Walker: -nothing but a complete and absolute brush off; and if you look at the speech of the former minister of justice, Hon. Mr. Garson, you will find that there was complete contempt for any suggestion that there should be a bill of rights. However, having tasted defeat, and striving desperately to get back into power, what do the opposition do? Not only do they make a volte-face; not only are they in favour of a bill of rights, but they would go much further. They are doing just as they did before that election in 1958 when, with regard to everything we introduced, they said "Me too" and "We will go further".
So it is with this bill of rights. How ridiculous it is to hear the Leader of the Opposition say that this bill ought to be in grand, eloquent language. I suppose he means the language of diplomacy, but no one yet knows what that language means. If my hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition had been a lawyer he would have known that this bill of rights is couched in traditional language for which there are precedents in every court.

It is in language which, when brought to the Supreme Court of Canada for interpretation, will not be that fancy language which the Leader of the Opposition suggests it should be but will be plain, simple language which all lawyers, all judges as well as the plain man in the back concessions can understand. That is why the bill of rights is drafted in the present language.


Lester Bowles Pearson: All except the bar association.


David James Walker: The Leader of the Opposition sounded the other day like sounding brass and tinkling cymbals signifying nothing. I do not know who wrote his speech for him, but it did not sound like the old professor who always extolled freedom 35 years ago.
The hon. member for Essex East, for whom I have great respect, made this rhetorical statement: "This is simply a declaratory bill". I infer from that he meant there is nothing substantive in its nature. Nothing could be further from the truth. Can the hon. member show me where in any of our laws and nomenclature there is a clause similar to clause 2(b), which gives the right of the individual to protection of the law without discrimination by reason of race, national origin, colour, religion or sex? Is that not substantive law? Is not clause 3 substantive law, although he is trying to tear it to tatters?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not want to interrupt, but is the minister asking me a question?


David James Walker: No, I am answering it. I say, is clause 3 declaratory or is it substantive law, setting up an interpretative rule for all our courts to use in simple, unequivocal language which says in terms that all acts of parliament, past, present and future, shall be subject to this bill of rights? This clause says that all the acts of the parliament of Canada shall-
-be so construed and applied as not to abrogate, abridge, or infringe or to authorize the abrogation, abridgement or infringement of any of the rights or freedoms recognized by this part-
Is that not substantive law? Is that not putting teeth into all the acts and statutes which have been passed and all the bills which will be passed in the future?
Mr. Speaker, there is our guarantee, right there in clause 3, because this bill of rights is superimposed upon every act and every regulation of the parliament of Canada. There is no law of the parliament of Canada that is not subject to this bill of rights, and here it is for the first time. How blind are they who will not see. It seems ridiculous at this time that we did not have this years ago,
Human Rights
when every one of the 29 other countries which have passed a bill of rights saw the necessity long ago.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not want to interrupt, but would the minister permit a question at this time?


David James Walker: I regret to say no; I have to open the public works picnic in a few minutes.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the minister does not yield he must be allowed to continue.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Then don't be noisily arrogant.


David James Walker: The Leader of the Opposition time after time makes these snide remarks, but let me say that the reason I have not replied to him on other occasions is, first, that I have respect for him as a person; and second, I do not want in any way to dim the lustre which he may hold as leader, because I feel confident that as long as he is leader of the Liberal party we will form the government of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lester Bowles Pearson: You are not doing very well now.


David James Walker: My next point is this. Is this not an act which can be repealed? This is the point: Every act of the house can be repealed by the house and every constitutional amendment to the British North America Act affecting the rights of the Canadian parliament can only be repealed on a joint address of the Senate and House of Commons. But once this bill of rights is passed, is anybody going to suggest that there is any chance of it being repealed? Because it would take a deliberate act of parliament, and would give rise without doubt to a high degree of debate and would gain much publicity. There is not a snowball's chance of the bill of rights being repealed once it is enacted.
Furthermore, the history of parliament indicates beyond peradventure that where the freedom of man has been incorporated into a statute, no parliament would lightly interfere with that particular statute. One of the purposes of this bill has been to ensure that fundamental freedoms and human rights cannot be secretly or clandestinely done away with. It does not make any difference what stupid government might in another 20 years follow this government. No matter what it does there will always be the bill of rights to ensure that even though an act may have been passed clandestinely or surreptitiously, or people may have missed the meaning of it, there is nevertheless superimposed upon that particular piece of legislation the protective terms of the bill of rights.

Human Rights
The next question nay hon. friend will ask is this. Why does not this bill apply to the provinces? The Leader of the Opposition suggested that it should. The hon. member for Outremont-St. Jean, for whom I have a high regard and who does not speak too often in this house, rose in great indignation and said that such a bill of rights would infringe the provisions of the civil code of the province of Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, take your pick; they are a dime a dozen. The Leader of the Opposition would have a bill of rights affecting not only the dominion parliament but all the provincial legislatures. On the other hand the hon. member-


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


David James Walker: There is no point of order; I am interpreting what you said.


Lester Bowles Pearson: You are not.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the Leader of the Opposition rising on a point of order?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, in spite
of the minister's assertion that there is no point of order, he having not heard it. My point of order is that I made no such statement in my speech, that this particular bill should be applicable to the provinces, and the minister of course knows it.


David James Walker: The Leader of the Opposition suggested that any bill of rights passed by this parliament should be made applicable to all ten provinces.


Lester Bowles Pearson: On a point of order, I made no such suggestion and the minister knows it. I did suggest that we should get in touch with the provinces to see if they would agree to the extension of these principles to cover both the provinces and the federal government, which is a very different thing.


David James Walker: I am delighted to hear that the Leader of the Opposition is still making that suggestion. Perhaps he was a member of the government which in 1950 convened the federal-provincial constitutional conference here in Ottawa. It was convened by the then prime minister, Mr. St. Laurent, in January, 1950-and I have here the proceedings, which no one has mentioned so far-in an attempt to arrive at a satisfactory formula to overcome the necessity of going to the United Kingdom for amendments. That constitutional conference met first at Ottawa, and in a hopeless mess and muddle finally, to save face, adjourned and moved on to Quebec many months later, in September of 1950.
Mr. Speaker, I ask hon. members to read the proceedings of that conference and see the attempt which was made to reach common ground with the provinces. There was much said about the tower of Babel about which the Leader of the Opposition seems to know so much. It was really present at that constitutional conference. This conference called by the Liberal government of the day finally broke up in confusion because there was no possibility of reaching any agreement.
Is my hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition now talking with his tongue in his cheek when he suggests that the complete imbroglio of that conference would not be repeated at another conference? Under the circumstances we are doing all we can to pass the best bill we can which will be applicable to the government of Canada and to the laws of the Dominion of Canada. When we have done that we will have gone a long way in bringing about this much sought after bill of rights. We can go on from here; but this is some accomplishment and perhaps some day, if my hon. friend will tell us how we can solve the monstrous difficulties met by this constitutional conference, we may have a bill which will be applicable to all the provinces as well as the Dominion of Canada.
In the meantime we are pointing the way. As some of my hon. friends have said, there is a bill of rights in Saskatchewan, there is a bill of rights in Alberta, and the premier of Ontario has mentioned the possibility of a bill of rights in that province. The new premier of the province of Quebec has suggested that Quebec may have a bill of rights. But to suggest that this ideal which has hung suspended for so long, and that the Prime Minister's pilgrimage, begun back in 1942, should now be dealt with along the lines of the foolish suggestion by the Leader of the Opposition, would only confuse the issue and further delay what we know, at least, we are able to do today.
There have been suggestions that the bill might blot out freedoms and rights which it does not specifically mention. The hon. member for Assiniboia made that point. It was also asked why the economic rights which we now enjoy should not be incorporated in this bill.


Murdo William Martin: Hear, hear.


David James Walker: The hon. member for Essex East says "hear, hear". He is too good a lawyer to say "hear, hear"; he knows better than that. He knows that all you can do in any bill of rights is to incorporate the fundamental freedoms and human rights. To try

to amplify that, to detail it, would only put the Supreme Court of Canada into a strait-jacket. In the course of my practice I have appeared before the Supreme Court of Canada many times over the past 30 years. What they want above all other things is simplicity of language, and here you have it; simple, plain language that cannot be misunderstood by layman, lawyer or judge. I submit that if the question of economic rights was laid before the supreme court it would consider the interpretive rule as laid down in clause 3 and say, "Have these economic rights been infringed?" Then it would say, "Let us apply the four fundamental freedoms and other clauses set out in the bill to determine whether that is so". The Leader of the Opposition smiles, but after all the Leader of the Opposition has never been in a court and he does not know what it is all about, and is not expected to.


Lionel Chevrier: I hope you do not carry on in this way in court.


David James Walker: As a matter of fact, if the hon. member for Laurier ever got out of the police court it is something I never heard of.


Lionel Chevrier: You are the best expert in police court tactics that I know.


David James Walker: In an experience in the supreme court extending over 30 years I never heard of the hon. member for Laurier ever having been in that court, and I think it is fair to say he has never been there.


Lionel Chevrier: When I was there I never used those tactics.


Paul Joseph James Martin: On a point of order, I believe that what the hon. member has just said

in the heat of debate, I am sure-he will regret having said. He will want to withdraw those remarks; because the hon. member for Laurier was and is a very successful and eminent member of the bar. I am sure the Minister of Public Works will want to correct the implication he has made and withdraw the name-calling, which is not appropriate or suitable to the occasion.


David James Walker: The hon. member for Essex East is quite right; as a fellow barrister I withdraw any aspersions on the reputation of the hon. member for Laurier as a member of the bar. At the same time there will not be any aspersions if the hon. gentleman will let me continue my speech without derogatory references to my reputation; if he is un-familar with my work at the bar, he can look through the law reports of the past 30 years and acquaint himself with it.
Another question raised is whether there are sufficient precedents to establish that the parliament of Canada may pass a bill of rights
Human Rights
binding on the legislatures of the provinces. We have only three authoritative cases in the Supreme Court of Canada that deal with this question, and there is complete confusion in the result. I will outline the three cases very briefly. There was the Social Credit legislation of 1938, a record of which is to be found in the Supreme Court Reports at page 100. Then there was Saumur v. City of Quebec in 1953, 2 S.C.R. 299, otherwise the Jehovah's Witnesses' case; and then there was the padlock case, Switzman v. Elbling, 1957, S.C.R. 285. None of these cases establishes that the dominion parliament alone has jurisdiction to legislate for the protection of fundamental freedoms, nor do these cases lay down any particular proposition in relation to fundamental freedoms that would be binding upon the Supreme Court of Canada or any other court.
So much for a question which has been asked in the course of this debate. If I had time I would like to go into each of those three cases in detail to show that there is no clear-cut and well-defined principle which we could follow.
The Leader of the Opposition also suggested that the matter should be referred to the Supreme Court of Canada.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That was the Prime Minister's suggestion.


David James Walker: The Prime Minister did suggest that many years ago in his speeches; and that question, I can assure the Leader of the Opposition, has been canvassed with great thoroughness by the Department of Justice. We suggest that it is important to frame any questions in a manner which would enable us to get a clear answer, but no one has suggested even in a vague form what questions could or should be asked of the supreme court, questions upon which any court could express an opinion that would assist in determining the lines of a bill of rights to be enacted by the Canadian parliament. Also, we do not know what clear-cut answer could be given, in view of the conflict even in the Supreme Court of Canada on this very important piece of legislation.
May I call it one o'clock?
At one o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2 p.m.
David James Walker: Mr. Speaker, at the time of the luncheon adjournment I was attempting to explain why it is preferable not to attempt to include in this or in any other bill of

Human Rights
rights all the different rights and freedoms to which the citizens of Canada are entitled. It would be particularly difficult to set out in legislation the economic rights of Canadians. This would cause confusion because these rights, whatever they might be, are preserved under clause 5 of the bill, which makes quite certain that no existing human right or fundamental freedom is abrogated or abridged. The Canadian public should understand that it was not the intention to enumerate in this bill all the rights and freedoms. It should be clear that it was not intended to undertake to define them in detail, whatever they might be. Clause 5 reads:
Nothing in part I shall be construed to abrogate or abridge any human right or fundamental freedom not enumerated therein that may have existed in Canada at the commencement of this act.
As I understood the Leader of the Opposition, his chief criticism of the Prime Minister's bill of rights was that there should be greater strictures on use of the War Measures Act. We are not introducing the War Measures Act today nor seeking to have it amended. The Liberal government lived under the act for years and did not choose to amend it. If the Leader of the Opposition feels that this act should be amended, there is a time and place to do so; but it has no connection with the bill of rights. The reason the bill of rights refers to the War Measures Act in clause 6 is so that in the event of war, parliament will first have the opportunity of discussing that proclamation declaring war. That is as far as it goes. If my hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition is as confined in his strictures, as he seemed to have been, to criticizing the War Measures Act and the various clauses in connection with it, I think it is a compliment to the author of the bill of rights that the hon. gentleman had to go so far afield in an effort to find something to criticize.
The bill to amend the Defence Production Act was fought vehemently in the parliament of 1955 and finally passed on the insistance of Mr. Howe, the then minister of defence production. Sections 23 and 24 of that act in particular are for the house an example of the arbitrary measures which will be found to be ultra vires once this bill of rights is passed. The Defence Production Act was amended in 1955, just two years before the previous arbitrary government was thrust from office. The two sections to which I made reference were not renewed. Section 23 made it possible for the minister of defence production to require a person to participate in a defence contract whether or not he wished to do so. Under section 24, where it was deemed necessary for the purposes of the act, the minister by notice in writing could take
tMr. Walker.]
possession of or requisition any supplies whether or not the owner of those supplies wished to surrender them. I respectfully suggest that due to the present government such arbitrary measures are no longer the law. This is an instance where the bill of rights when enacted will automatically take hold and become effective.
At this time I should give proper recognition to the C.C.F. group. They have always been in favour of a bill of rights. It is not very often that I have the opportunity or the desire, to compliment them. Although the manner in which they would envisage enactment of a bill of rights is impossible of fulfillment, nevertheless their general ambition and desire in this connection is proper and commendable.
What are the effects of the bill as summarized? In the first place, it focuses the attention of the public on civil liberties. In this rapidly changing era, when mobs of students have taken over what appeared to be sound and stable governments in the past few months, it is about time we had some idea in the mind of the public concerning what are our civil liberties. We should know, too, what rights the bill seeks to define. The educational effect of this bill on the public will be tremendous. Where in Canada can there be found in an act a list of the fundamental human rights and freedoms accessible to the ordinary layman? Where else can he look to examine these things and say "These are my rights"?
The fundamental freedoms and human rights cannot be changed either secretly or inadvertently as a result of this bill. In my earlier remarks I discussed in detail the reasons for this. This act when in force will superimpose on every act, past, present and future, and on all regulations under every act passed by the dominion parliament all four freedoms and all human rights. This bill of rights acts as an interpretative rule for the courts in Canada to follow in dominion legislation. I discussed that in detail in my earlier remarks.
Finally, this bill enshrines in a statute for the first time in the history of Canada the rights of the individual. July 1, 1960 was really a momentous day of perhaps greater importance to Canada than we can appreciate at this time. Once passed, every Canadian can pick up the bill of rights and say, "Here are my rights and here are my freedoms." When was there ever before an opportunity for Canadian citizens to do that? What a tremendous thing it is for the youth of our country, for the new Canadians who

did not know what fundamental freedoms meant in the countries from which they came?


Harold Edward Winch: May I ask the minister a question?


David James Walker: Certainly.


Harold Edward Winch: Do I understand from what the minister has been saying in the past few minutes that with the passage of this bill of rights, any federal legislation which contradicts it will then be declared ultra vires? Do I understand also from what he has said that any federal legislation which may be inconsistent with this bill-


David James Walker: Just a minute; will my hon. friend make his speech after I am finished? I will not be long. I shall be glad to answer his questions when I am finished. I am just summing up at the moment. At the conclusion of my remarks I shall be happy to answer that long question or series of questions.
As far as I am concerned, I am going to frame a copy of the bill of rights for every school in my riding, and I am going to distribute 40,000 copies to my constituents. It is about time that Canadians knew what are their rights. I envisage the time when we shall have a Canadian bill of rights approved by and applying to all the provinces. But in view of the imbroglios into which the dominion and the provinces get whenever they start to straighten out such matters as the superimposing of rights, one unto the other, I suggested that until that day is past-and it may still be a long way off- we should pass this bill. We will have pointed the way. We will have a dominion bill of rights. Two of the provinces have already passed bills of rights; others may do so in the future, and the not too distant future.
It is our own earnest hope that as time unfolds, with an appreciation of what a bill of rights can mean when it is fully understood by all the people of Canada, we shall have something which covers not only the dominion but all the provinces. In the meantime, I respectfully submit that this is as far as we can go at the moment, and it is a very long way to go in the circumstances. It has taken 18 years to bring this bill to fruition. In this connection we have one person and one person alone to thank for educating the Canadian public so that they demanded it, and for educating the Liberal party so that they, too, are in favour of it. I refer to none other than the right hon. Prime Minister of Canada.


Harold Edward Winch: I understood the minister to ask me to wait until he sat down before
Human Rights
asking my question. In view of what he said, is it his interpretation that with the passage of this bill of rights, any federal legislation which contravenes the principles of this legislation is automatically ultra vires?
I followed the minister very closely. Did he also mean that when we have a statute which imposes or authorizes the imposition of torture, the bill of rights will no longer permit it? Does this mean that I no longer have to introduce my bill for the abolition of corporal punishment?


David James Walker: I do not know whether that question of the hon. member is a witty one or whether it is supposed to contribute to the seriousness of this debate.


Harold Edward Winch: It is a very serious question.


David James Walker: The answer to the first part of the question is that the bill of rights does superimpose itself on all dominion legislation. It is so clear in its language and understanding that, superimposed on any act, it will be a very simple thing for the courts to determine whether or not any other act infringes on the superclauses of the bill of rights.


Mr. Habel:: Super-duper.


David James Walker: The superimposed clauses of the bill of rights.


Paul Joseph James Martin: In view of what the minister has said about superimposition of this bill on the existing law when it becomes law, and also because of what the minister said when he commented on clause 2 (b), which provides for the avoid* ance of discrimination, will the minister say whether in his judgment once this bill becomes law it will no longer be possible for the situation to be repeated which occurred in the case of a Negro citizen in Windsor, when that deserving citizen was denied, as the minister knows, the right to a loan under the Central Mortgage and Housing Act? There is a practical case.


David James Walker: Yes. My hon. friend is referring to something with which Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation had no concern; it had nothing whatever to do with it. It was a loan made by an approved lender. Therefore let us get that straight in the first place.


Murdo William Martin: But we guarantee those loans.


David James Walker: Quite so; we guarantee them. In connection with clause 2(b), in answer to my hon. friend, this particular clause will be of tremendous help to us in drafting a section to be included in our mortgages. We shall now have extra support for what I

Human Rights
know the hon. member for Essex East is anxious that we should do, namely to include a clause in our mortgages to prevent the discrimination which is referred to here. As a matter of fact, once this bill is passed- my hon. friend now knows it in advance- I intend to announce in the house that from now on we are including such a clause in our mortgages to prevent the discrimination referred to in clause 2(b).


Harold Edward Winch: Why didn't you do it before?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Minister of Justice said you could not do it.


Erhart Regier: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the amendment moved by my colleague the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch). May I read the amendment into the record once again:
That this bill be not now read a second time, but be it resolved that this house is of the opinion that the provinces should be consulted in order to ascertain whether agreement can be reached on the terms of a constitutional amendment to guarantee human rights and fundamental freedoms.
I have listened with a great deal of interest to the contributions made on July 1, yesterday and this morning to this debate. In my opinion the issue now before us is over and above partisanship, and I regret that the Minister of Public Works was the first speaker in the debate to introduce partisanship. Before the lunch hour I heard nothing but a bunch of rubbish, utter unadulterated nonsense and political partisanship in its lowest degree.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Are you describing your
speech?


Erhart Regier: Referring and pointing to the bill, the Minister of Public Works intimated- and these were his words-"There is our guarantee". Yesterday, the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi said, when referring to the bill, "It is enforceable". I have great reservations on whether there is actually any guarantee in the bill before us, or whether it is enforceable at all. The Minister of Public Works also said about the bill, "Here are my rights; here are my freedoms". I doubt the claim of the minister in this respect, and I also doubt his statement that we have one person alone to thank for the bill. I doubt that the Prime Minister is so vain that he would claim that he alone is the only one we should thank for the emergence in parliament at long last of a bill of rights. I believe he will admit that many other Canadians are equally responsible for the debate that is now taking place, even though he was instrumental in introducing the bill at this time.

I believe that much of the optimism expressed yesterday, this morning and on July 1 may be based on rather weak grounds. In looking over the bill I am disappointed in a number of respects, and I believe my disappointment is shared by a good number of the Canadian people. Before dealing with these disappointments I should like to pay a tribute to the men and the few women who have been responsible for adjudicating upon Canadian law over the years. I believe that our courts have gone a long way and have done much to enhance the liberties of each and every one of us. I should like to pay a compliment to these people, because in the precedents established in Canada and in the United Kingdom over the course of the centuries I believe many more rights are embodied than will ever be conferred upon individuals by this legislation.
I know there is always a dividing line between what constitutes freedom and what constitutes licence, and that it is very hard to determine. I do not think any member of the house would say that we should endorse licence. However, I believe we are all sincere in our desire to enhance the cause of individual liberties and freedoms.
The bill now before us has been delayed for a number of years. It is an important bill, and I do not regret for one moment the delay that has ensued. Rather than introducing a bill of this kind and of this significance in the dying weeks of the session, I believe it might have been advisable to delay it a little longer. I believe that the bill should go before a committee, and I welcome that course of action. However, I express regret that, simply because of the pressure of time, the committee is going to be limited in hearing adequate representations from Canadian organizations and individuals who are interested and would like to make a contribution to the deliberations of the committee.
I express disappointment in the bill of rights now before us because I feel that the mountain has laboured and has produced a mouse. I believe that the bill is uninspiring, and I heartily endorse the views expressed by the Leader of the Opposition yesterday in this regard. If the bill is meant to express our ideals, I believe it fails utterly in that respect. If it is to be taken as an expression of our ideals with regard to individual freedom, then all I can say is that I believe we can do much better. I believe there are thousands of Canadians with the ability to express our ideals more adequately than they are expressed in the wording of the bill. If the bill is to be a law, it is inadequate in that regard. It is neither an expression of an ideal nor will it be an adequate act or law of the House of Commons. It falls far short.

It seems to me a placenta, an afterbirth; and, as I said before, the mountain has laboured and at long last has produced a mouse.
It is my contention that Bill No. C-79, an act for the recognition and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms, is unworthy of the vision that the Canadian people had of the member for Prince Albert in 1957 or 1958. I submit that the bill is unworthy of our heritage. I submit that it is unworthy of the significance of our Dominion day, July 1.
This bill is supposed to protect the fundamental rights of the individual, but I notice that in clause 2 it says that-
-there have always existed and shall continue to exist the following human rights and fundamental freedoms, namely,
(a) the right of the individual to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law.
I should like to emphasize the words "except by due process of law". These words make a mockery of any pretence that the individual is now being protected against actions on the part of governments. Anything that is done by a government ought to be by due process of law; and while the bill may protect my rights from invasion by another individual, it does nothing to protect my rights from invasion by government because the government always has at its disposal the due process of law. In my opinion the whole reason for the origin of the bill falls down right here in this clause, which contains the words "except by due process of law". I am being allowed to enjoy my fundamental rights with this exception, "except by due process of law". I have those rights only as long as the government of the day deems it advisable that I have them. I feel that the whole intent of the bill is defeated by that little inclusion "except by due process of law".
We have in this bill no protection whatsoever against the law. The law can violate individual human rights at any time a parliament or a government deems it advisable to do so. In the whole bill-and this is repeated and underlined time after time in the bill- the prerogative of the government and of parliament to violate individual human rights is maintained. Any argument that this bill is going to protect individuals from arrogance or from arbitrary decisions on the part of government falls apart like a house of cards.


Mr. Macdonnell:: I find it hard to follow the hon. member. Will he permit a question?


Erhart Regier: Yes.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Does he not think that, every day we live, we live by due process
Human Rights
of law; that every action we take is by due process of law; and that we are protected and governed by laws which are made not by government but by parliament? I find it hard to follow the hon. member.


Erhart Regier: I agree with the hon. member. However, the claim that was made on behalf of this bill was that the bill was going to protect the rights of individuals from arbitrary action at the hands of government or parliament.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: That is not due process of law. The hon. member is now talking about arbitrary action.


Erhart Regier: Yet the bill retains for parliament and for government the opportunity to violate the right of individuals at any time it deems it advisable to do so.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: How so?


Erhart Regier: Because, as I indicated previously, the rights are guaranteed "except by due process of law". In other words, the right to own property, the right of life itself, the right of liberty or the right of security of the person can be nullified by due process of law. I do not think that basic contention can be denied.
However, I was going to advance beyond that point. We are even limited in the protection of our rights in so far as individuals can continue to deny us these rights without hindrance. The most I can say is that if my rights are being threatened by another individual, I can appeal to the courts and I may toe able to get an injunction or a restraining order. I will say that much on behalf of the bill. However, beyond that I cannot go. Individuals may violate this bill and there is no penalty attached to the violation. They may be found guilty of violating the bill. However, next week they may repeat their offence and they may repeat it the week thereafter. There is no enforcement. There is no recourse except the possibility of withholding an intended action by appealing to the courts and asking for an injunction. The only teeth in the bill, as I see it, are the possibilities of appealing to the courts when one anticipates that the bill may be violated. There is nothing else in it that will enforce the bill.
I therefore find it extremely hard to understand what the Minister of Public Works means when he says that this is our guarantee, and what the hon. member for Brome-Mis-sisquoi means when he says that it is enforceable. I do not realize how it is enforceable when individuals can continue to violate the act ad nauseam, and when the government can use the due process of law in order to

Human Rights
deny to individuals the fundamental rights that are established in the bill.
I especially support the amendment because of the reply of the Prime Minister on July 1 to the question asked by the hon. member for Assiniboia. In reply to the hon. member for Assiniboia the Prime Minister made it abundantly clear that the provinces had not been consulted. I feel that this answer indicates that the bill now before us is less than the best that we might offer to the Canadian electorate at the present time. Apparently no effort was made to obtain the agreement of the provincial governments. Not only do I believe that an effort should have been made in this direction, but I also believe that a bill of rights, in order to be really effective, should be submitted by way of a referendum to the Canadian people at the next general election, especially if there might be hesitancy on the part of one or more of the provinces in reaching agreement on what constitutes or should constitute a bill of rights for the Canadian people as Canadian citizens.
I do not place too much reliance on provincial bills of rights. I do not believe that a Canadian living in one area of Canada ought to have rights that he is not able to enjoy in all other areas of our nation. It is obvious that the government did not even bother to consult with the provinces. They were so intent on making this a bill of their own that they have produced a bill that I consider to be partly a proclamation or a declaration. If it is meant to be that, any master of the English language would say it is a horrible failure in that it does not express our ideals. If it is meant as a law, it is unenforceable and is extremely weak indeed.
The bill in effect does not affect existing legislation. I realize that there is a direction to the courts. However, I believe that any member of the Supreme Court of Canada would say that the direction contained in section 3 of part I of the bill is as wide open as a barn door. There is really no specific order to anyone connected with our judiciary to be found in section 3. It does not affect existing legislation effectively. There is no direction to a court. It does not affect future legislation because under clause 4, as has already been ably pointed out, the minister "shall examine". It does not order the minister to do anything; he shall merely examine, which means nothing. There is no directive there except that he shall examine. It does not say that he shall declare something ultra vires; he shall do nothing except examine. There is not even the order that he shall report to this House of Commons, but merely the order that he shall examine. He

can examine until he is blue in the face; if the government has made up its mind it wants to do something it may listen to his advice or it may not, depending on its whim at any particular time.
At this time I would like to ask our Prime Minister where is the committee that he spoke of on January 27 last? At that time our Prime Minister said, as reported on page 390 of Hansard:
I felt and I still feel that one matter that might well be brought before the house would be the setting up of a committee similar to that in the British House of Commons known as the scrutiny committee. It would examine legislation being passed by parliament and already on the statute books, and would examine orders in council, which are not passed by parliament directly, to the end that anything in the nature of a contravention of fundamental freedoms would be brought to the attention of the house as a whole.
At this time, almost six months later, we have heard nothing more of this committee which was supposed to be established. Where is this committee? I asked a little later, on February 4, whether this proposed committee would also examine or be responsible for examining the regulations of the department of immigration. As recorded on page 715 of Hansard I said:
Is the Prime Minister in a position to inform us when we may expect the establishment of a scrutiny committee, such as he announced on January 27; and will this committee be permitted to investigate alleged discrimination because of colour in Canadian immigration regulations?
The answer I received at that time is as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the first question is the only one I can answer at this time.
Actually the Prime Minister answered both questions.
When we arrive at that point in the proceedings and I am able to bring about agreement with the members of the opposition as to the establishment of this committee, then, if it is agreeable to the house, the committee will be set up.
I would like to interject here a question to the Prime Minister. Has he consulted with the opposition, or how many more months must the opposition wait for him to consult with them as to the establishment of this committee he offered to set up? The Prime Minister continued:
As to what it will look into and its powers, I think what the hon. gentleman has in mind has not been the usual practice followed by the United Kingdom scrutiny committee.
In other words, as I read that it is obvious that the regulations of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration are to remain exempt not only from the provisions of the bill of rights which is now before us but also from the eyes of the proposed scrutiny committee about which the Prime Minister waxed so enthusiastic only six months ago.



I960

[Stage Direction]
As I see the bill before us, if it is really going to have some teeth it will mean that Canadians of East Indian origin are going to have the same rights as all other Canadians in the matter of bringing in their relatives. Canadians of Chinese or Japanese origin are going to have the same rights as, say, Canadians of Norwegian or Dutch origin when it comes to bringing in their relatives. If the bill has any teeth at all it will mean a radical and automatic revision of existing immigration regulations.
I believe it will also affect our efforts in regard to world refugee year. I am dismayed and angered every time I watch the television appeal on behalf of world refugee year when refugees in the Middle East are shown on the screen in pictures depicting their deplorable state, and similar pictures are shown of the likewise deplorable state of refugees in Hong Kong. While the dollars are lured out of our good-hearted Canadian taxpayers on behalf of world refugee year, the money is devoted exclusively to the admission into Canada of white refugees living in western Europe.
If the bill of rights means anything at all it ought not only to put an end to this misuse of advertising and the wringing of the hearts of Canadians on behalf of Middle East and Hong Kong refugees, but proper use should be made of the money obtained instead of using it only on behalf of the white people of the world. This government stands guilty of utter discrimination in this regard, and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation stands guilty of utter misrepresentation of the whole cause of world refugee year and its appeal for funds.
Much has been said on behalf of Canadian citizens of Japanese origin. I would like to say this, and I do not think it has ever been said before since this government has been in office. You cannot grant equal rights to Canadians of Japanese origin until you right a wrong that has never been righted yet. I refer to the confiscation and looting of the assets of Japanese Canadians. I know very well that under the Liberal government an inquiry was held into this matter and many of these wrongs were righted. However, when the offending party could not be located there was no equity restored to the Canadian citizens of Japanese origin who had suffered an undue wrong.
I refer now to the looting of the warehouses in the custody of Her Majesty in Vancouver, when pianos and living room sets were simply stolen; when forest rights were sold for a song to avaricious Canadians; when farms worth tens of thousands of dollars were sold for mere hundreds of dollars, and equity has not yet been restored. Canadians of Japanese origin will never feel 79951-0-362
Human Rights
that they have been given a square deal until the day, and I hope I live to see it, when the conscience of the Canadian people will move the government of the day to restore to our fellow Canadians that which was so wrongly taken away from them.
I would like to see in a bill of rights a certain measure of protection to the Canadian people from brainwashing. At the present time, because of wealthy advertising interests and monopoly in the field of communication, the Canadian people are being brainwashed indeed. I believe that in a bill of rights there ought to be a decree which would protect our young from being brainwashed. I know people do these things in all innocence, but high school teachers will hand out propaganda to their pupils, and even Sunday school organizations accept the film put out by the B.C. Electric Company in British Columbia, though interwoven throughout the film are the glories of this so-called wonderful organization. Canadians today, especially the younger Canadians, are helpless in the face of the brainwashing that is taking place.
I see no reason why a bill of rights should not also contain economic rights as suggested by other speakers, including the hon. member for Assiniboia and the hon. member for Essex East. I believe there should also be a guarantee in the bill of rights to every Canadian who is willing to work and to every Canadian who, though willing to work, is unable to work through no fault of his own, providing for a basic minimum standard of living; and that should include income, pension, education and health insurance.
It was many years ago that the leaders of the western world in the now famous Atlantic charter announced that one of the ideals of the democratic world was the establishment of freedom from want. I see no reference in this bill of rights to that announcement which was made in time of war. Many years have now gone by, and I contend that what was expressed as an ideal in wartime ought also to remain an ideal in time of peace. Our people must be free in order to progress.
I should like to close by submitting that all progress throughout the ages has always originated with a minority. It has never been in the interests of those in authority to advance mankind; it has never suited the vested interests to do so. It has always been the aim of vested interests to obtain for themselves control of government in order to block progress and maintain the status quo. Above all, it has never been in their interest to remove ignorance and fear.
I feel that the bill now before us is a move in the right direction. I feel, too, that
[Stage Direction]
Human Rights
the amendment is well worth support. However, I regret that after all this effort something more worthy of the expectations of the Canadian people has not been presented at this time.
(Translation) :
Hon. Pierre Sevigny (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I take
great pleasure in rising in this house to express a few personal views on the bill of rights now being discussed.
I believe it is quite desirable to deal with this matter and to reaffirm our faith in the principles which are at the basis of our very life.
I also believe that it is essential for us, the representatives of the people, whatever our political allegiance, to come here and reaffirm loudly in this national parliament what we repeated and even promised many times to those who wanted to listen-to come here, in this house, and state in a loud voice that we are here to serve the most significant rights of the citizen, to serve freedom and to serve democracy.
A very great American, Thomas Jefferson, once said that a bill of rights such as the one we are now discussing is not necessarily effective in all circumstances but that it would always be useful, and almost always effective.
I, for one, think it is necessary for all of us to unite and to reassert in this house our determination to serve the best interests of democracy and freedom.
It is often said, Mr. Speaker, that a great many crimes have been committed in the name of freedom, and unfortunately, one has to admit it, that struggle for freedom and that fight for human rights have caused many crimes.
But this is due to the fact that this freedom, so dear to all of us, and for which we must fight, is worthy of the greatest efforts, the mightiest struggles and the hardest fights. It is our duty to protect it at all times. The safeguard of that freedom, this is our life's ideal, our prime purpose.
Let us remember those far-away days of 1918 when, after four years of bloodshed, the war that was supposed to end all wars was coming to a close.
Then, the victors and vanquished alike declared that, after so many efforts, sacrifices and bloodshed, the free world should realize that human rights and freedom were finally being protected; and with an utter unconcern,

countries plunged into a frenzy of pleasures and enjoyment, without giving a second thought to the impending disaster.
Barely 21 years later, the civilized world again found itself in the midst of a war that is considered today as the greatest conflict of all times.
Again in 1945, after all those sacrifices, we all thought: now it is all over, at last human rights are protected. There is no further need to talk about them. War is a thing of the past; there will never be another.
Yet what do we see today, Mr. Speaker? Again we see the known world hovering on the very brink of a conflict which, if it happens, may well involve the destruction of all mankind as we know it. In view of that very grave danger still hanging above our heads, I feel there is a need to reaffirm our faith in the life principles in which we believe. I feel there is a need to proclaim out loud to the face of the whole world that we, here in Canada, believe in freedom and justice.
We are often inclined to say that all the wrongs are on the enemy's side. And it is a fact that, behind the iron curtain, millions of men are living in latent slavery; that millions of men dream only of the day when perhaps a ray of light will brighten their lives and bring them those spiritual freedoms which they know we enjoy. It must be recognized, however, that our side does not hold a monopoly on virtue. All too often we see cases of monstrous intolerance which could quite easily lead so-called democratic countries, which we regard as brothers, into the abyss of communism. Therefore it is to avoid what is happening in those friendly and allied countries that we, in Canada, must affirm and reaffirm our belief in those principles which are the very basis of justice and peace.
(Text):
Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt in my mind that the standard of living of the communist countries has been considerably improved during latter years. It is quite possible that some day the eastern nations will know a standard of material comfort almost comparable to what we are accustomed to, and which unfortunately we accept with such insouciance and carelessness. It is obvious that the leaders of communist Russia and China are striving and working to acquire material wealth for the citizens of their country.
That is why it frequently happens that so many economists and so many people who, heaven knows, should know better, seem to find some good in the doctrines under which these countries live. Sometimes we see some industrialists, professional men or others who

come forth and declare that the system under which these countries live is perhaps not so bad, and they suggest that maybe we should study it more closely. There are those among us who at times may be influenced by this propaganda, and there are some who dream of the day when this system of life will predominate in the world.
There is no doubt that the arguments of these propagandists may have a certain influence on the minds of our population. Today, I do not hesitate to say that what is too often forgotten is that this race toward material wealth and comfort is never accompanied by a similar race toward the attainment of spiritual values. It should be realized that the enslavement of the minds of men and the complete restriction of their right to think, to speak and to pray God as they wish to pray God have always been the aim of the way of life of the communist countries, and these things are in direct opposition to what we believe. If our population could only appreciate the extraordinary value of these rights which we enjoy, and which we too often accept without giving them a second thought, I am sure the communist ideals would never prevail in our land. I am equally sure that these people would realize that the bringing into effect of a bill such as the one before us is an absolute necessity.
In former years I travelled twice behind the iron curtain. Although I admit that during my travels I was received with the greatest courtesy, I nevertheless realized how strained the atmosphere can be in these totalitarian lands. I saw with my own two eyes what fear means. I never saw two people express controversial views in front of each other. Never did anyone confide anything to me unless he was alone, and unless he made sure that no one was within earshot. I know what it means to be scared when you touch a telephone. I know what it means to look for microphones in hotel rooms. I know what it means to be suspicious of the man next to you in the restaurant. I know, because on the few occasions when I could actually speak to someone alone they told me that every move of their every day life must be careful. They must watch themselves because they never know whether a brother or friend is actually an enemy.
At the slightest suspicion the state police grab these people, shut them up with no further explanation and release them if and when they feel that this can be done. I repeat that although I was treated with courtesy, I saw what fear was. I saw fear in the eyes of men, fear in the hearts of women, fear and jealousy of what we have in our land, in this land blessed by God 79951-0-3624
Human Rights
that is Canada and which, unfortunately, we do not always sufficiently appreciate.
(Translation) :
Mr. Speaker, it may be that, some day, that iron curtain frontier will disappear. We must hope, as said recently, by one of the greatest men of modern times, general de Gaulle, president of fair France, that soon the imaginary and yet very real iron curtain will disappear.
Let us hope that soon leaders of communist countries, as those of western countries, will realize that the salvation of mankind really lies in lasting peace. It may be that the leaders of great nations, realizing that a third world war would bring about an unprecedented cataclysm and, let us admit it, the end of the world, will find some way of working hand in hand to put a stop to that constant and futile provocation.
Mr. Speaker, when that blessed day arrives, do you not think that our having here a bill of rights, one which very clearly defines the freedoms which are at the basis of our life will allow us to tell all those nations which for nearly two generations, have been in a state of total slavery: these are the life principles in which we believe; these are the life principles we invite you to make your own. Then, together, let us join hands, form a unit, and together, let us work for the greater progress of humanity.


Mr. Speaker-(Text):: 


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, would the minister permit a question?


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Would the hon. member mind deferring his question until I have completed my remarks?
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, I consider it of capital importance at this time that this bill of rights be adopted and that people in the underdeveloped countries be told: "That generosity which has been shown to you-be it under the Colombo plan, or the UNICEF, or any other similar organization-implies no restriction whatsoever." We should tell those nations: "We are offering you this aid merely because we consider that you are our equals, our brothers, and that you are as entitled as we are to benefit from the fruits of this earth." Let us tell them too: "We believe in an ideal of justice and charity, and that is why we come to help you. Personally, I am convinced that, if we spoke to them in

Human Rights
this way, we would make many friends and draw nearer to those people who, if we are unable to help them, are bound to be attracted by the bait held out to them by communist nations.
Moreover, Mr. Speaker, I support this bill of rights for still another reason, one of no lesser importance. Indeed, I personally believe that every truth deserves to be told, retold, reiterated and repeated. To my mind, even on this American continent, it is necessary to state and repeat frequently that we believe in equal opportunity for all and in an ideal of freedom and justice.
Oh yes, Mr. Speaker, many hold the view that the things that happened in the old countries in Europe cannot happen here in Canada. It is stated by many that the developments taking place in other commonwealth countries are restricted to countries abroad and that we cannot possibly fall victim to similar situations.
Yet, Mr. Speaker, nothing is further from the truth. Nothing is further from the truth because we in Canada, as well as people in the United States or elsewhere in the western world, are faced today with the same danger that threatens those other countries. The first of those dangers is intolerance, racial intolerance, intolerance that prompts some people, for reasons of colour, religion, or origin, to mistreat other human beings who, being born in the same country, are entitled to share equally in the privileges existing in those countries.
Does a week ever go by, Mr. Speaker, without our reading in daily newspapers reports of intolerance either in the United States or Canada? Can we say that our entire population is free from those feelings that lead citizens in various sections of our nation to regrettable excesses.
Mr. Speaker, we in the commonwealth regard ourselves as civilized nations; yet just recently, because of racial intolerance, bloody riots have taken place in another commonwealth country caused by the fact that leaders in that country displayed intolerance towards a majority of the people. We now suspect that if this intolerance should continue, a whole continent might very soon be put to fire and sword.
Mr. Speaker, is it not true that hardly 15 years have elapsed since the end of the greatest conflict in history? Is it not true that, at the end of that conflict, we heard of unbelievable acts of savagery committed by a supposedly civilized nation? I am not going to blame the German people for the things that happened in their country from 1939 to 1945; I will not blame them because it might have happened elsewhere. I simply want to say this:	if we often restate

to our people the principles of life that are the basis of our existence, if we say to our children: you are as free as your neighbour, you have no more rights than he has, but you have as many privileges; if we ward off the menace of hunger and of fear; if we advocate and reassert the advantages of living in an atmosphere of freedom of speech and of thought, I venture to think, Mr. Speaker, that we shall exert a good influence and that we shall prevent some ruler, sooner or later, from taking over the government of our country, from encroaching upon our rights and submitting our democracy to a dictatorship such as those we have witnessed and suffered from.
Germany was one of the most civilized countries of Europe. I must say again that I do not blame the German people for the excesses committed from the time Adolf Hitler came to power until his downfall in 1945. But I submit that once a country disregards the value of the principles of life that must guide it in the choice of its rulers, that country runs the danger of falling under the rule of tyrants and dictators who might easily commit the same crimes of which the nazis were unfortunately guilty.
A very short time ago, in the light of the Eichmann incident, we have had to live over again the atrocious history of concentration camps. Nowadays, as in 1945, it seems frightful that such things could have taken place, but it must be admitted, for it is grim reality. And this happened barely 15 years ago, in a civilized country which unfortunately, by a conjunction of circumstances, fell under the rule of a ruthless dictator.
What occurred elsewhere 15 years ago, is happening today in a commonwealth country. The incidents we read about every day in the papers can easily happen here. It is therefore essential that we have a bill of rights as a solid basis for the principles of justice, freedom and equality in which we believe.
There are some people in this house, Mr. Speaker, and also elsewhere, who say that this bill is unnecessary, that it only duplicates the Bill of Rights of 1689, that it is a copy of the Magna Carta, of the American Declaration of Independence and a mere repetition of old rigmaroles and old stories of which we are surfeited. However, Mr. Chairman, nothing could be further from the truth, because I think if something is really true, it deserves to be told and retold.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, if mankind had more often remembered the great principles that were taught 2,000 years ago from a small mountain in Judaea, perhaps we might have avoided those mass slaughters, those wars to which we unfortunately were eyewitnesses and in which we even fought.
Mr. Speaker, you know as I do that 2,000 years ago, the greatest of all men preached from that mountain the simplest yet most beautiful of truths which, through millions of repetitions, have retained all of their original truth, beauty and purity.
Every day, those simple truths proclaimed by Jesus are repeated, such simple truths as "Love one another", "peace on earth to men of good will", "do not do unto others what you would not have them do unto you". In all their simplicity and beauty, those truths have retained their freshness, and for that reason they deserve to be repeated, just as we should repeat our faith in our way of life, in our freedom, in our right to worship God in our own way, to speak the language we learned at our mother's knee. We should repeat them and repeat them often; otherwise, we will unavoidably be drawn into chaos, disorder and neglect as were those nations who forgot those great truths.
It is often said that such truths are not so very important, not so very serious. Why waste time in platitudes and high-sounding speeches when everyone knows perfectly what it is all about. May I, before closing my remarks, give you an example of the power of words and the power of determination not to surrender to any threat however powerful and tyrannical. We remember, Mr. Speaker, that in 1940, one man, alone, perhaps the greatest of the twentieth century, Sir Winston Churchill, rose, uttered simple but powerful words, and repeated to the flagging forces of democracy: "We shall not flag nor fail, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight in the streets, we shall fight everywhere the enemy may be. We shall fight on. We shall never surrender, and victory will be ours because the forces of good are with us." Is it not true that those magic words of Sir Winston Churchill succeeded in electrifying a whole world which then set to work; and is it not true that this marked the turning point of a battle which could otherwise have been an absolute defeat?
Human Rights
Mr. Speaker, let us remember that, in 1942, the victory of the enemy seemed assured and imminent. German forces were closing in on Stalingrad; Rommel's forces in Africa were thrusting back British troops as far as the ports of the Mediterranean; the British were holding on in spite of successive and violent bombings; enemy submarines were sinking ships, and our losses were considerable. Once again, Sir Winston Churchill, as well as the president of the United States, Mr. Franklin Delano Roosevelt, got together and drafted that magnificent document, the Atlantic charter which so aptly defines the purposes for which allied soldiers were fighting, the protection of freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of the press, and freedom from fear.
Mr. Speaker, I do not hesitate to say emphatically that this bill of rights must be supported by each and every one in this house, that this bill is a necessary repetition of the principles in which we believe, a necessary repetition of our creed, of our beliefs and of our aspirations.
In closing, may I say this:
(Text):
During two great world wars the leaders of the times called upon the youth of this country to join the services and go wherever duty called in order to fight so that democracy would live and freedom would prevail, and during two world wars hundreds of thousands of young Canadians joined the ranks and throughout fought with valour and courage so that those ideals which are contained in this bill of rights could prevail and live forever. They fought for those ideals; they died for those ideals.
(Translation):
I think that by enacting this bill of rights, we are paying homage to those great soldiers; we are saying to them that their sacrifices were not in vain, that they died for a good cause, that they had to die for the things in which they believed, but that we, the living, place great value on their sacrifice and do not hesitate to say in the face of Canada and the world that we are ready to fight again as they did because freedom, great and holy freedom, is the most beautiful thing in the world.
(Text):


Harold Edward Winch: Will the minister permit a question?

Human Rights


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: With pleasure.


Harold Edward Winch: In view of the emotional and I trust sincere statement-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Harold Edward Winch: -the minister has made about freedom for Canadians-will the minister state what position he took as a member of the cabinet of Canada in forestalling the denial of free association to trade unionists in Newfoundland when the cabinet had the power to do so? Will he also state, in view of his interpretation of the bill as enunciated by him, whether there is a guarantee that under this bill when passed never again will workers anywhere in Canada be denied the right of free trade union association?


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Mr. Speaker, I believe that
those who know me know that when it came time to defend our freedoms and our liberties I was not the last in line.


Harold Edward Winch: You were a cabinet minister before time ran out.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Second, may I tell him that I cannot reply to his question concerning trade unions because I was not associated with this matter when it actually presented itself. Third, I can tell him that we in the Conservative party are just as anxious to serve the Canadian people as are members of the C.C.F.; and instead of obstructing progressive measures, as we see continually happening in this chamber, we try to work for the better interests of the people to whom we are dedicated and whom we promised to serve.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I understood the minister to say in answering my question that he was not a member of the cabinet when time ran out with regard to the matter in Newfoundland. If he said that, it is not so.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Cartier.


Harold Edward Winch: He was a cabinet member and he had the power.


An hon. Member:: He did not say he was not.


Mr. L. D. Crestohl (Cartier):: Mr. Speaker, on the last occasion when a similar bill was before the house, as well as on this occasion we have heard, and no doubt will hear, very eloquent and forceful addresses on this most basic subject. I had the privilege on the last occasion of making some observations on that bill, and I should now like to supplement what I said then. While the addresses that we hear

are most eloquent and, as I said, forceful and laudatory, it strikes me as if some of our colleagues seem to think there is a contest as to whether or not the bill deserves support. I should like to submit that there is no contest here as to whether a measure of this kind is a desirable one. I do not think there is anyone in the house who will contradict that statement. However, I am afraid that we have taken our eye off the target.
It is my respectful submission that what we should be concerned with is an examination of this legislation in order to see whether it contains those ingredients or those clauses which a bill of this kind should contain. I should like to suggest that we should address ourselves principally to the question of whether the measure is in the form in which it can attain all of the objectives sought by every member in this house. Of course the bill repeats all the platitudinous hopes, dreams and aspirations since Magna Carta in the year 1215; later the English bill of rights in the year 1689, the French declaration of the rights of man proclaimed in the year 1789; even more recently the preamble to the United States constitution and to some extent the Gettysburg address; and similar pronouncements by nearly all countries in the world.
There is but one basic difference, Mr. Speaker, namely that the others were all unanimously accepted and approved by all the people and all the sections of the countries in which they were proclaimed and became the particular constitutional bases of those countries. The present bill lacks exactly that unanimity and constitutional strength which the others have had, and that is the matter which concerns us. It may be a pretty and pious hope to present a piece of legislation of this kind. However, let us see whether it is effective or whether it can be effective.
I would point out that only the unanimity which accompanied the other legislation in the other countries can give this measure any meaning and effectiveness. Otherwise it is just a repetition, as I said, of pious hopes which have been stated and repeated in this house many times. The bill itself is not fundamental. It is not a part of our constitution, nor is it even suggested that it can become a part of our constitution. To me the measure itself lacks permanence. It can be repealed at any time. It is only an act of parliament. It is quite obvious that it does not retain that permanence that a constitution has.
Moreover, to me the measure also has another shortcoming. As has been said in so many different ways, it lacks soul and it lacks heart. To mean anything it must be a piece of legislation that will be ingrained into the very fabric of Canadian conviction. It should

be taught in all schools and should be almost religiously accepted by all Canadians. I do not think it can achieve this permanence by this rather prosaic, unrealistic, unimaginative and unappealing language.
It must be accepted by the parliament of every province without a single exception. Otherwise how can we protect people against invasion of civil liberties by provincial legislatures which enact laws in connection with matters over which they have constitutional jurisdiction such as property and civil rights. In this chamber this very morning we heard of a very poignant and classic example of how it is possible to have a conflict between federal legislation and provincial legislation which basically defeats a bill on human rights. We heard today that three people, with skin of a different colour from ours, were denied admission into a hotel in Canada. The Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) eloquently and justly took the position that a thing like that should not be permitted in this country. When my leader asked him whether this is in conflict with his bill of rights the Prime Minister did not answer whether there was or was not any conflict with his bill of rights. All he said was that it was a matter that falls under the jurisdiction of the provincial legislatures.
You have here a classic example indicating that the bill now before the house would not and cannot remedy the situation about which we heard this morning, quite coincidentally. If the federal parliament had the authority to enact legislation which could remedy a situation of that kind I am sure the Prime Minister would have had such a provision in his bill. He did not say so in so many words, but I noted that he was visibly disturbed by the incident. It was an unusual incident to happen in a country that is presenting a bill on human rights and fundamental freedoms. Surely the Prime Minister was disturbed by it. Yet he tells us almost, in language out of his own mouth, that this bill of his that he is presenting to the house cannot remedy such an injustice as this which we should not have in Canada.
As I said, we support the measure in its theory and its principles but we say that, unfortunately, it does not remedy those faults which exist in Canada and which the bill should remedy. It may be able to go that far; it may be able to reach into those avenues in which these unfortunate incidents happen if it were studied and presented in a form which will make it constitutional so that it will become a basic part of our constitution.
It has been suggested by a number of hon. members who have spoken that this might be done, either by a conference with the
Human Rights
provinces or by other means. I would point out that there are many examples of such conflicts. It should be the duty of this house -and we are all concerned-to find a correct constitutional measure and we should give study to the matter.
In addition to the other suggestions that have been made as to how it could become constitutional, I would not hesitate to suggest that the government should appoint a royal commission on which would be represented provincial legislatures and constitutional law authorities, and that they should sit together, consult with each other in order to work out a proposal for a bill of human rights and fundamental freedoms. When it is approved by this royal commission, let each one of the members go back to their own legislatures and present that bill which has been unanimously accepted and found to be constitutional. If each legislature without any exception will approve that measure, then we have unanimity in the country or a form of unanimity which can then make it constitutional. Then we have it incorporated into our constitution and there we have something of permanence. What we all seek is a constitutional and political guarantee for a complete and comprehensive bill of rights and not a political, personal or academic exercise in political science.
The measure should supersede narrow and parochial legislation or regulations on immigration, refugees, stateless persons and the like. Legal scholars and constitutional lawyers and recognized authorities have given their carefully studied opinions that the present bill falls far short of being constitutional or one that can be effective in any way.
That is a serious thing for members of the house to consider. I do not think it is a waste of time in going through this exercise. I think there have been some splendid speeches and the more we talk of these things the healthier it is for the country, but let us not close our eyes and say that just because this has been presented it is the best thing. It is not the best thing. Constitutional lawyers have pointed out that legally it will not stand up.
I should like to address myself for a few moments to the point that the bill falls far short of being completely comprehensive. May I point out a typical illustration of what I have in mind. I am not going into the clauses in detail but I will have to refer to them to illustrate. In clause 2 we find this language:
It is hereby recognized and declared that in Canada there have always existed and shall continue to exist the following human rights-

Human Rights
I draw the attention of the house to those words. They are there as if to say that no other rights than those listed in this clause have ever existed in Canada before, that these are the only rights which have existed in Canada. I do not admit that. We do not know what the rights are in precise language. If, for example, instead of saying "the following human rights" you said-


Mr. Browne (Si. John's West):: Could I draw the hon. member's attention to clause 5 of part II?


Leon David Crestohl: I will come to clause 5 of part II, but this is the language we are dealing with. If this clause had read that there has always existed and shall continue to exist in Canada all the known human rights, including the following, that language would be all inclusive. We would have been sure that that would cover every conceivable human right, whether listed in clause 2 or not. The Prime Minister, being an able lawyer, will readily see that there is a difference. He is stating to the world that these rights which are mentioned in clause 2 have existed in Canada only up to the present time.


Mr. Chambers:: Read clause 5.


Leon David Crestohl: I have read clause 5 and I will come to it, if the hon. member will be patient for a few moments. I cannot ignore clause 2.
Then a little further down in clause 2 we find:
(b)	the right of the Individual to protection of the law without discrimination by reason of race,-
Et cetera. To me that is faulty because it appears as if the individual has the right to the protection of the law against discrimination by reason of race, colour, and so on. I submit respectfully that the bill of rights should clearly declare that the individual has the right to be free from discrimination by reason of race, national origin, colour, religion or sex. He should have the right to be free from all these things and to the protection of the law when his rights are invaded. But to say that he has the right to the protection of the law could imply many things which are not intended. If you were to say that the individual shall be free from discrimination by reason of race, colour or creed and that he shall also have the right to the protection of the law when these rights are invaded, that to me would be a very complete statement.
Then lower down we find:
(c)	freedom of religion;
That is all it says. I would prefer to see the words "freedom of religion to profess and practise it according to one's own belief and conviction". A man may have the right to

freedom of religion but may be prevented from professing it or practising it, and I think that is another fault. I suggest that when we limit our rights we have to examine them minutely and carefully to make sure nothing is overlooked.
Then we have in (d) freedom of speech. I would prefer to see the words "freedom of speech, but not to incite treason or hatred amongst men". We have heard it said that people who make violent attacks in speeches against others have freedom of speech, a right to their own opinion. But we have no reason to incite hatred amongst men and we can say so by reducing that to writing and putting it in a bill of rights.
Then we have in (e) freedom of assembly and association, and I say that that is faulty also. It would have been complete if it had read "freedom of peaceable assembly and association". I think that would make it constitutional and much more acceptable.
Then we have (f), freedom of the press. Again I would include here "but not to incite or unlawfully malign". Under the heading of freedom of the press many scurrilous pamphlets and magazine articles are written and circulated in Canada. I am sure that every time members of the house see them on their desks they must be stirred and wonder why it is that such horrible literature is permitted to go through our mails. Attempts have been made to stop the circulation of these pamphlets. Literature is a very good thing but the moment it starts to incite race hatred and hatred amongst men, when we circumscribe these rights into a bill of rights the people who are guilty of those activities should be clearly told "You have the freedom of the press but you have not got freedom to malign people, to circulate scandalous and scurrilous literature to preach hate amongst people and between one Canadian and another." That is not freedom of the press. I am the last in this country who would in any way obstruct freedom of the press or freedom of speech, but when these things are reduced to the point where they are taken advantage of and do more harm than good, then while writing a bill of rights we should write it with all the clarity and security we possibly can.
I also say that I believe there have been many freedoms which have been omitted from the bill. There have been some observations made by some hon. members, but not one of them have included the phrase "freedom of work" and "freedom of trade union association". That is sometimes questioned. Either a man is free to do that or he is not. If he is not, let us not be afraid to say so. We should say that an individual should have freedom of work or freedom not to work,

because if I have not freedom not to work and I am forced to work, that is slavery. Surely that is not intended. Therefore this measure should contain the provision that there shall be freedom to work or not to work.
Next, I would suggest the addition of a further provision to this clause entitling students to seek enlightenment at institutions of learning regardless of race, colour or creed. That should be clearly stated in the bill. There was an instance, which has already been mentioned in this chamber, where a man of oriental origin applied to three universities, which he named, for permission to study medicine, but he was refused admission to each of them. If a man wishes to study he should have the right to study and should not be refused admission to places of learning because of his race or colour. I do not think we want ever to reach a stage where there will be segregation in any of our educational institutions, and that should be clearly stated in our bill of rights-that there should never be segregation of students in our schools.
There are a number of other matters that need careful attention, although this may not be the time at which to carry out such a process. There are so many flaws which are apparent in this measure that some mention must be made of them and a really dangerous situation arises when a list of specific rights is drawn up and put down in such a measure as this, in which it is said: these are your rights in addition to any others which have existed. I refer hon. members to clause 3, subclause (e) where a person may not be deprived:
-of the right to a fair hearing in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice for the determination of his rights and obligations.
A fair hearing by whom? The wording should continue "by an impartial tribunal, and/or a court of law". If that is what is wanted, then spell it out.


Mr. Speaker:: With deference to the hon. member, his line of argument now would seem to be more appropriate for the committee stage. He is dealing with the verbal content of the clause.


Leon David Crestohl: I was a little apprehensive that I might be encroaching on that rule of our chamber. But we have had some latitude extended because this is a matter of proposing amendments, and while I am speaking on the measure I throw these thoughts out and they can be considered. I feel that my argument is a little thin-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Leon David Crestohl: Yes, and take note that I am the one who knows it. I wish a few more
79951-0-363
Human Rights
hon. members would know when their arguments are just useless and impotent. With them it is always "my prime minister, right or wrong".


An hon. Member:: Correct.


Leon David Crestohl: I have not taken that position. One more point in connection with this clause, and I promise you, Mr. Speaker, I will not belabour it. In the very next paragraph there is a contradiction, because it says that no person shall be deprived of the right:
-to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal for the determination of any criminal charge.
The previous paragraph makes reference only to a fair hearing. Why should the provision not be the same in each case? If in principle a person is entitled to a fair and public hearing, why should that not be the procedure in both these paragraphs? Why should the hearing be fair in one case, and fair and public in the other?
The last objection I wish to raise is in connection with clause 4 outlining the duties of the minister of justice. According to this clause, the minister of justice has the duty of examining all regulations that are submitted to the clerk of the privy council in order to determine whether or not they are consistent with the provisions and principles of the present bill. I say that is giving the minister the right of veto, and that is a right which no minister should possess. Supposing, for example, that a backbencher wanted to introduce a bill either to amend existing legislation or to introduce new legislation. The minister of justice would have the right to say: no, we will not admit your bill because it is inconsistent with these provisions. I think that is not conferring a right but removing a right which members of parliament already have, and such a power should not be left to a single minister of the crown.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Would the hon. member not admit that in respect to this question the bill now before the house is far less objectionable than the bill as introduced in 1958, in that it does not now give the minister the arbitrary power to which he has referred.


Leon David Crestohl: I do not think the powers granted then were acceptable. I do not think that all that authority should be vested in one minister.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Would the hon. member point out to me where any absolute power to forbid the introduction of legislation is given to the minister of justice in the bill now before the house?


Leon David Crestohl: In that case, perhaps the minister would interpret for us the purpose of

Human Rights
the clause. One hon. member who spoke a short while ago did say that it was meaningless. Suppose the minister does find that a
regulation is inconsistent with the principles of this act. Would that be just an academic exercise or would he do something about it?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I shall be glad to explain that when we come to the committee stage. It was not intended to give the minister of justice dictatorial power, but merely to ensure by an expression of parliament that the minister of justice, whoever he might be, does carry out his duty with regard to the review of legislation and regulations.


Leon David Crestohl: I do not think anyone has ever questioned whether or not the minister is performing his duty in examining the legislation that comes before the house. Here it states clearly that:
The Minister of Justice shall, in accordance with such regulations as may be prescribed by the governor in council, examine every proposed regulation submitted in draft form to the clerk of the privy council pursuant to the Regulations Act and every bill introduced in the House of Commons, in order to ascertain whether any of the provisions thereof are inconsistent with the purposes and provisions of this part.
My question is this: supposing the minister comes to the conclusion that a regulation or a bill is inconsistent with those provisions-what will the minister do? Or suppose the minister comes to the conclusion that it is not inconsistent, what will the minister do? This clause is really meaningless. I can believe that the minister would examine it and give it a fine, academic, legal examination. To make the provision meaningful it should provide that after examination by the minister, if he concludes it is inconsistent he should say so and make a report and reject it. I see no purpose for this clause being included.
There should exist in Canada a parliamentary committee like the one that exists in other countries. I was discussing this matter today with a member of one of the Australian legislatures who said that they have a committee which supervises and investigates possible abuses of purely administrative powers and the regulations which are established by order in council. We have no such committee in this parliament.
An act of parliament gives a minister the right to set up regulations for the administration of his department or for the discharge of that particular measure. The regulations are set up, passed by order in council and move into the law of the land without being scrutinized or discussed by parliament. It is these regulations that should be examined by a committee of this house. It would be helpful if we had a committee like those which

exist in Denmark, Australia and in the mother of parliaments to examine and scrutinize the regulations which become part of the law by order in council whether we like it or not. I do not know whether the regulations should be examined before being submitted to the governor in council for approval or after they have been passed but they should be scrutinized at some stage. It is necessary to assess them because some of them may be abusive. I could cite instances of regulations which almost have the effect of nullifying existing legislation or rights.
Perhaps I should give one illustration. I refer to the law adopted last year concerning humane slaughter. I shall only repeat what I said then. I am speaking just as an individual. I have freedom of religion and the bill before us will affirm this; yet, through the regulations of a department there might occur an invasion of my right to enjoy freedom of religion. That is the kind of regulation that should be examined by a committee of this house composed of members of all parties. The committee could reach a conclusion as to whether or not, whether intentionally or inadvertently, there might come into being an abuse of a human right or an interference with a fundamental freedom which it is intended that Canadians have.
One hon. member who participated in the debate said that the present bill is without any sanctions. This bill when passed will be a law. It does not represent a preamble to the constitution. It is not even a constitutional provision. This is a bill of parliament which it is intended that people should obey. With respect to other bills passed by this parliament there are sanctions if people break the law. What are the sanctions in this measure? Again it is reduced to a pious hope.
I do not object to the bill. I should like to see it enacted as I am sure all hon. members would. However, I do feel that it should be more enforceable, that it should have more teeth in it. It would win my more hearty approval if we could, so to speak, really spread the gospel by making it a bill that all Canadians could fully understand.
One hon. gentleman said that this may be an important beginning. Certainly the Magna Carta and other measures of that nature were the beginning of an important trend and have achieved great significance over the years. I think the Prime Minister would do the country a great service and would make a significant contribution to humanity for all time to come if the hon. gentleman would accept my suggestion of establishing either a royal commission or a



[Stage Direction]
special commission composed of the finest brains on the subject we have available in the country as well as representatives of all the provinces to see if they could hammer out a bill of rights and fundamental human freedoms that would be acceptable to all. As long as a measure of this nature is not acceptable to someone it is not a true bill of rights.
Mr. R. J. McCleave (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, it is perhaps fitting that I should participate in this debate because in the last few months I have had a special preoccupation, not with the theory of human rights and fundamental freedoms but with the actuality and practice of them. In that time I have seen a woman driven to insanity. I have seen babies born illegitimately. I have had a person come before me and cry her heart out for two hours because she could not resume her proper name and thus secure a passport to go behind the iron curtain to her homeland. These things I have seen and these things were affected by fundamental freedoms and human rights.
If I could have had in that harrowing time the privilege of coming here to the House of Commons and knowing that I was among friends and that everybody shared the zeal that I do that people's rights should properly be protected, then I would have been happy and proud to have been a member of the House of Commons. Instead, those things have been denied me, not by the theoretical words of anybody but by the practices they have carried out. I intend to say more about that later as I discuss the Canadian bill of rights which is before us for consideration this afternoon.
First may I turn to the criticisms made of this bill by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson). I will quote his criticisms and then, if I may, reply to them. The hon. gentleman is reported at page 5651 of Hansard of Friday, July 1, 1960, as saying:
Historically, Mr. Speaker, I think there is a good deal to say for Professor Lower's contention that there has never been any serious abridgement or any attempt to abridge what are generally understood to be human rights and fundamental freedoms by the parliament of Canada in time of peace or non-emergency.
Perhaps that is quite correct but the Leader of the Opposition on that occasion spoke immediately following the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) who in his remarks set forth nine examples where human rights had been abridged by the actions of the government in recent times. If you say they were not abridged by parliament that is probably so because parliament in those days did not stand up and censure the government when it derogated from 79951-0-3634
Human Rights
human rights; but if you say that all those occurred in wartime, as the Leader of the Opposition would suggest, then that is wrong because six of the nine examples cited by the Prime Minister occurred in the years immediately following world war II. A wartime spirit of autocracy may have been there to promote these things but those were days of peace when those derogations occurred.
Another member of the opposition, the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) spoke this morning about economic freedoms, the right of employers, as I gathered his words, to hire as they saw fit on conditions they saw fit and to pay wages they saw fit. If this is an economic right, it is just a reflection of the laissez-faire Liberal doctrine of the nineteenth century which has long ago been rejected in our society when we ensure that the working man does have rights against too powerful employers.
Then, the final Liberal speaker who just preceded me, the hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Crestohl), spoke about the language in the bill of rights. Later on I will say more about the language in the bill of rights and about some of the suggestions made to cure it. He suggested that it should be in more lively language, something that would capture the imagination. He then proceeded to read into the record a series of suggested changes that he himself had thought of which would make this bill of rights, if those changes were adopted, hobble like a centipede with 99 peg legs.
Now, to the C.C.F. The other day the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge), described himself, I gathered, as Snow White, in his desire to have things done properly, and the seven dwarfs around him nodded their agreement; Gabby, Doc, Doleful, Snee-zy, Grumpy, Dopey and Slaphappy all agreed with him, and I take it they all agree with the remarks that have been made by the C.C.F. speakers in the debate so far. Freedom, rights, liberties; do not let them get away with what they are doing to the natives in South Africa; the rights of people in Hong Kong. These sonorous words flowed from their lips, Mr. Speaker, from the lips of a group which cannot manage the affairs that are right in the hands of this parliament.
Let me turn now to the language of the bill of rights and to the critics who suggest that more memorable words can be captured somewhere else. Let me read you this Mr. Speaker, for simple, short expressiveness:
Every person and every class of persons shall enjoy the right to acquire by purchase, to own in fee simple or otherwise, to lease, rent and to occupy any lands, messuages, tenements or hereditaments, corporeal or incorporeal, of every nature

Human Rights
and description, and every estate or interest therein, whether legal or equitable, without discrimination because of the race, creed, religion, colour or ethnic or national origin of such person or class of persons.
I believe that the only standard words they left out of this are easements and water courses. Where did this come from? That stirring call to set men's hearts alight? It came from chapter 345 of the revised statutes of Saskatchewan, 1953, and section 10 thereof.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Is that the Saskatchewan bill of rights?


Robert Jardine McCleave: It is the Saskatchewan bill of rights, as the Minister of Justice asks. I presume they would present this phraseology to us as the answer to the language that should be employed in this bill of rights.
The hon. member for Essex East suggests that perhaps we could spruce up this document with some preamble from the Magna Carta. I actually believe what he had in mind was the preamble to the charter itself. If so, I shall read it into the record and we shall see if the language will be of any assistance:
John, by the Grace of God, King of England, Lord of Ireland, Duke of Normandy and Acquitaine, and Earl of Anjou, to his Archbishops, Bishops, Abbots, Earls, Barons, Justiciaries, Foresters, Sheriffs, Governors, Officers, and to all Bailiffs, and his faithful subjects,-Greeting. Know ye, that We, in the presence of God, and for the salvation of our own soul, and of the souls of all our ancestors, and of our heirs, to the honour of God, and the exaltation of the Holy Church and amendment of our Kingdom, by the counsel of our venerable fathers, Stephen, Archbishop of Canterbury, Primate of all England, and Cardinal of the Holy Roman Church, Henry, Archbishop of Dublin, William of London, Peter of Winchester, Joceline of Bath and Glastonbury, Hugh of Lincoln, Walter of Worcester, William of Coventry, and Benedict of Rochester, Bishops; Master Pan-dulph, our Lord the Pope's Subdeacon and familiar, Brother Almeric, Master of the Knights-Templars in England, and of these noble persons, William Mareschal Earl of Pembroke, William Earl of Salisbury, William Earl of Warren, William Earl of Arundel, Alan de Galloway Constable of Scotland, Warin Fitz-Gerald, Hubert de Burgh Seneschal of Poictou, Peter Fitz-Herbert, Hugh de Nevil, Matthew Fitz-Herbert, Thomas Basset, Alan Basset, Philip de Albiniac, Robert de Roppel, John Mare-schall, John Fitz-Hugh, and others our liegemen; have in the first place granted to God, and by this our present Charter, have confirmed, for us and our heirs forever;-
This is the preamble which perhaps the hon. member for Essex East would like to smuggle into the bill of rights. If not, and he wants language from elsewhere, perhaps this from the great charter, section 55, would do the trick nicely:
All fines have been made by us unjustly, or contrary to the laws of the land, and all amerciaments that have been imposed unjustly, or contrary to the laws of the land, shall be wholly remitted, or ordered by the verdict of the 25 Barons, of whom mention is made below, for the security of the peace, or by the verdict of the greater part

of them, together with the aforesaid Stephen, Archbishop of Canterbury, if he can be present, and others whom he may think fit to bring with him; and if he cannot be present, the business shall proceed, notwithstanding, without him; but so that if any one or more of the aforesaid twenty five Barons have a similar plea, let them be removed from that particular trial, and others elected and sworn by the residue of the same twenty five, be substituted in their room, only for that trial.
That might be the replacement that everybody is after for the Income Tax Act. Even this greatest section, section 12, suffers again the defect of language:
No scutage nor aid shall be imposed in our kingdom, unless by the common council of our kingdom; excepting to redeem our person, to make our eldest son a knight, and once to marry our eldest daughter, and not for these, unless a reasonable aid shall be demanded.
And finally, for his edification, so that he can use some of these phrases when he presents amendments to the Canadian bill of rights, I give to the hon. member for Essex East No. 39 of the great charter:
No free man shall be seized, or imprisoned, or dispossessed, or outlawed, or in any way destroyed; nor will we condemn him, nor will we commit him to prison, excepting by the legal judgment of his peers, or by the laws of the land.
The latter part of this section is now known as due process of law.
This time I turn to the Thinkers' Library for inspiration and I recommend this to my hon. friends of the Liberal and C.C.F. parties, the Thinkers' Library, that is. There were suggestions that we follow some of the language of John Stuart Mill. I have his book "On Liberty". There are words in here that are applicable to the present debate but I do not suggest that the language could carry out the purposes of the hon. member for Essex East. For example, I turn to page 16 of this very fine essay and I throw it out not only for the thought it contains, which is ample, but also to ask the house whether it could usefully contain any phraseology for our bill. Mr. Mill puts it this way:
Apart from the peculiar tenets of individual thinkers, there is also in the world at large an increasing inclination to stretch unduly the powers of society over the individual, both by the force of opinion and even by that of legislation; and as the tendency of all the changes taking place in the world is to strengthen society and diminish the power of the individual, this encroachment is not one of the evils which tend spontaneously to disappear, but, on the contrary, to grow more and more formidable.
Obviously within that sentence, and it is a complete sentence, there exists in Mr. Mill's language the problem we are trying to solve, thanks to the Prime Minister's bill of rights. I also suggest to the house that nowhere in that language is there a ready, quick phrase that could usefully be incorporated in the legislation we are considering today.

For those detractors of the Prime Minister and the draftsmanship that has gone into this particular bill of rights, may I also read from another noble work in the English language on liberty, and this concerns liberty of the press. I suggest that the remarks of Mr. John Milton in Areopagitica have particular application to the critics of the Prime Minister. From the Pitt press series, page 34, I am again going to read one sentence which will take about three minutes to read but which contains very powerful language indeed. These are the words:
When a man writes to the world, he summons up all his reason and deliberation to assist him; he searches, meditates, is industrious, and likely consults and confers with his judicious friends; after all which done, he takes himself to be informed in what he writes, as well as any that wrote before him; if in this, the most consummate act of his fidelity and ripeness, no years, no industry, no former proof of his abilities, can bring him to that state of maturity, as not to be still mistrusted and suspected, unless he carry all his considerate diligence, all his midnight watchings. and expense of Palladian oil, to the hasty view of an unleisured licenser, perhaps much his younger, perhaps far his inferior in judgment-
I think these words about unleisured licensers certainly apply to the unleisured critics we have had here.
-perhaps one who never knew the labour of bookwriting; and if he be not repulsed or slighted, must appear in print like a punie with his guardian, and his censor's hand on the back of his title to be his bail and surety, that he is no idiot or seducer, it cannot be but a dishonour and derogation to the author, to the book, to the privilege and dignity of learning.
Mr. Milton's noble words have embraced in one vast sentence a great number of ideas, but again not containing the type of language which people could readily read or understand to be their particular rights.
I come now to one of the problems that I wish the bill of rights could handle and I hope that some time it can be made to deal with this problem. There are areas of responsibility which are given unto men but those areas of responsibility can be carried out properly or can be carried out badly indeed depending on whether men use their frailties or use their strengths to carry them out. Any due process of law should be a dignified process and it should ensure justice. It should be done for the suppliants before it and not for the glorification of those who are charged with the task of performing that judicial function. Theirs not to collect press clippings; theirs to do their duty. A sham judicial process is one where the spirit of the judge is mercurial and wilful and causes or determines not by rules of law but by the toss of a coin or a feeling of prejudice or a feeling of whimsicality, a feeling of caprice.
Human Rights
I have mentioned some of the social mischiefs that derogate from human rights and fundamental freedoms. I hope that by the time 5.30 comes around I will be able to walk out of this chamber, hold my head high again and say that all within this room are fair and just and honourable, not in a platitudinous way but in respect of the practical things that count in Canada.


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to say a few words in relation to the bill of rights now before the house I find myself in the rather unusual position of following an hon. member who has taken a line somewhat similar to mine. Fortunately I have some other examples of draftsmanship which will reveal as unnecessary the additions which the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) would have us make to the bill.
The hon. member for Essex East has said that the courts have formally enshrined in our Canadian law certain freedoms without the aid of parliament and in so stating he quoted among others the Jehovah's Witness cases. I should like to point out to the hon. member that in the two cases involving Jehovah's Witnesses which came before the Supreme Court of Canada there was a split decision. In each case the judges divided five for the decision and four against, which leaves us wondering how clearly the laws, practices and customs of our fundamental rights are enshrined in human knowledge and in our precedents in Canada. I wonder what might happen in the future if the court is differently composed and if other individuals sitting on the bench have to deal not with exactly the same problem but a similar one. I think the examples which the hon. member for Essex East quoted were of no assistance to his case but merely pointed to the fact that it is necessary to have stated in clear words what the intention of parliament is as to fundamental rights and freedoms.
Another example which the hon. member for Essex East used concerned criminal charges as they are dealt with in the bill, by clause 3, subclause (f), relating to the determination of a criminal charge against an individual. The hon. member asked what would happen in the case of a charge against a juvenile under the Juvenile Delinquents Act. I would point out to him that the Juvenile Delinquents Act is very clear on this matter. The act says that a juvenile delinquent is not a criminal and has not committed a crime. Section 3, subsection 2, of the act reads as follows:
Where a child, is adjudged to have committed a delinquency he shall be dealt with, not as an

Human Rights
offender, but as one in a condition of delinquency and therefore requiring help and guidance and proper supervision.
Therefore I suggest that any thought that a juvenile charged under the Juvenile Delinquents Act would come under this section as a criminal is very far afield.
A third objection was raised by the hon. member for Essex East and by several other members in the opposition. The hon. member for Halifax (Mr. McCleave) in reply quoted certain matters he wanted to bring to the attention of the house. The main complaint is that the language is too simple and too concise, and that it should be enlarged and made more specific in certain aspects.
Just in order to find out what people in the past have thought about the question of drafting legislation, I turned up one of the most valuable books on legislation, namely "Practical Legislation" by Lord Thring, written many years ago. In his introduction he points out that simplicity and clearness of language is the most important point in drafting legislation. At page 2-and this refers to the Magna Carta-he states the following:
The prince of all draftsmen, Stephen Langton, the Papal Legate, expressed Magna Charta in short and precise language; for example, no one can complain of ambiguity or verbosity in the most famous of all written enactments which declares, when translated, "To no man will we sell, to no man will we deny or delay, right or justice."
A little further on Lord Thring points to some examples of enactments in which too much verbosity is included and where things go wrong. At page 3 he quotes an amendment proposed in 1865 which reads as follows:
"Every dog found trespassing on inclosed land unaccompanied by the registered owner of such dog or other person who shall on being asked give his true name and address, may be then and there destroyed by such occupier or by his orders."
Further on in his introduction Lord Thring makes this statement:
The bill should be clear and should state at the very commencement the important principle of the measure and the greatest pains should be taken to separate the material from the comparatively immaterial provisions.
He concludes this page of notes with a warning to all those would-be draftsmen, and I think it is pertinent to the particular case in point:
It may be well to warn the draftsman that in his case virtue will, for the most part, be its own reward, and that after all the pains that have been bestowed on the preparation of a bill, every Lycurgus and Solon sitting on the back benches will denounce it as a crude and undigested measure, a monument of ignorance and stupidity. Moreover, when the bill has become law, it will have to run the gauntlet of the judicial bench, whose ermined dignitaries delight in pointing out the shortcomings of the legislature in approving such an imperfect performance.

I think it might be well to add that Lord Thring seemed to feel that such objections to simple language would come from the back benches. However, today we have had them from the front benches as well.
In connection with the amendment which is before the house, it has been suggested that the consent of the provinces ought to be secured before proceeding with this legislation. The hon. member for Timmins (Mr. Martin), in making this suggestion, compared the present piece of legislation with the amendment to the British North America Act with reference to the retirement ages of judges. He said that if it were possible for the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) to secure consent of all the provinces to that amendment, it should be just as simple a matter to secure consent to the present bill of rights.
I submit that there is no comparison whatever. There are two main differences. The Judges Act amendment is a simple alteration in the constitution on which a decision yes or no can be made by the provinces. The bill of rights, on the other hand, has a number of extremely important principles involved, each one of which must be considered by the provinces and answered yes or no. There is also a more fundamental difference, of course, namely that the amendment to the Judges Act is not what one would call a fundamental matter but an individual instance where consent could be obtained. The bill of rights is basic and as such a basic matter it includes many provisions, any one of which could provide an effective snag to negotiation.
I do not want to repeat what was said by the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Walker) in connection with previous meetings that had been held in an effort to get the provinces together with the federal government on such basic amendments as the present one. However, I feel-and many other members have expressed this opinion here yesterday and today-that we must have a start on the bill of rights. We must entrench it in our legislation and we must make clear what we intend; then we must hope and expect that in due course the provinces will come along and follow it up.
There is one final approach to this problem that I should like to make and I believe it has not been considered previously. I think we must go on the assumption that this bill is going to pass. I seem to feel that everyone here is in agreement with the basic principles of the bill. Various matters have been raised in connection with minor amendments or changes of wording. Perhaps some of these suggestions have merit. A committee

could consider them, whether it be the committee of the whole house or any other committee. However, those are minor matters. We are now considering the general principle of the bill, and I feel that the bill is bound to pass.
Protestations have been made by the opposition but I feel that no real matters of substance have been raised. It has been said that we should try for a constitutional amendment, that the wording of the bill does not go far enough, that the bill goes too far, that the language is too broad and that it is not sufficiently clear. However, in spite of all these objections, I feel that the bill will pass.
I think we must consider what results will flow from the passage of this bill. I think the results that will flow from this bill are much greater in magnitude than has been indicated by any hon. member of the house in discussing the bill other than the Prime Minister who introduced it. I think it may be many years before the effect of the bill gradually catches up with the legislation which is now on the books and the legislation which may come in the future. I think we must ask ourselves into what valleys and hidden corners of 93 years of Canadian legislation this bill may extend.
Passing reference has been made to sections of the Immigration Act and the regulations. Certain hon. members made reference to other acts which may be affected. I believe there may be many more which have been passed, and forgotten-and are at present unused but which may from time to time in the future make themselves noticed and be tested on this bill of rights in the courts. I wonder what present or past acts of parliament, or future acts, may be washed aside under the influence of the bill of rights.
Those who say that the bill does not go far enough may be surprised to find that it goes very far and that its effect may be reaching forward for a good many years. I feel the bill sets a level of morality in legislation in this country, a level which has not been previously set down in words. We have had from time to time expressions in the courts as to what is right and just and what are our basic human rights. These depend in large measure upon what judges can find in past cases and what they personally feel about these measures, but there has been no guide on which they may found their decisions. I see this bill as giving them that guide and that level of morality in considering whether an act does contravene basic human rights.
Mr. Speaker, if the house will forgive me for being poetic. I see the bill of rights
Human Rights
as a river flowing into a large valley, filling in many nooks and crannies which have been previously unnoticed, washing away many of the legislative bills which have been based on very sandy and shaky foundations in the past. I feel it may be many years before the full extent of this flowing in of the bill of rights into our legislative procedure will be fully determined and understood. Many years will pass, I believe, before this process is complete; but in the end, we will look back on this bill, as we now look back on the other great landmarks of declaratory legislation, as one of those great additions to the earlier declarations of human rights which have always been ours.


Egan Chambers: Mr. Speaker, it is with some hesitation that I rise to follow so many learned members of the legal profession who have spoken on this bill. On the other hand it is not too often that we have an opportunity in the House of Commons to talk about and vote upon matters as fundamental as is this bill of rights. Many of the matters which come before us call for a judgment, a comparison. We have, for instance, the estimates of a department which come before us and we must try to judge or decide whether the amounts of money required are appropriate. We must judge whether the business could be done with a little less money or whether it would be better done with a little more.
But today we are dealing with something that is not in the realm of judgment but in the realm of basic belief. We have before us a measure that enunciates principles, the principles upon which our society is, or certainly should be, founded. The bill before us sets out in black and white the things that Canadians believe. It sets out those things upon which we have built this country and it will be the guide post as we continue to build in the future.
There have been some criticisms of the language. To me, the language, and particularly the language in part I, is admirable in its economy. It is clear, concise, and beyond misunderstanding.
The world today is divided between those who believe that the only things of importance to mankind are the material things and those who believe that the spirit of man and his dignity as an individual are of first importance. It is time that the people of this country through their parliament should declare before the world to which of these camps they belong. Here we set down in the clearest of terms a statement of Canadian principles for all to see.

Human Rights
One of the other criticisms which has been made is that this bill may be repealed or that future legislation need not necessarily conform to it. But I ask you, Mr. Speaker, which member of this house today should he become a minister would rise in his place and introduce a bill to repeal this bill of rights? Which member of this house on occupying a seat on the treasury benches would rise and introduce a bill containing the clause "Notwithstanding the provisions of the bill of rights"? I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, it will be a long, long time before any Canadian minister will rise with any such suggestion, and that if any minister did so the ensuing debate would indeed be a fundamental one.
We have also heard some niggling criticisms to the effect that such a bill is not required. The legalistic mind insists that these rights are already embodied in British common law which we inherit, that we are safe in the hands of our courts and our tradition of freedom.
Mr. Speaker, how can I tell my sons what it means to be a Canadian in terms of court decisions? How can I explain to men of other countries Canada's position on these matters in terms of the supreme court's decision in the Alberta press act? The objections to this bill come from the same source that objections to progressive steps have ever come. They come from the comfortable, from those who have in their own resources the ability to defend their rights. In their own position in life, economic and otherwise, they are unafraid.
This bill is not for the comfortable, except incidentally. This bill is for the protection of those who need protection. It guarantees to the weak and to the poor their freedoms. With part I of this bill I can explain to my sons what it is to be a Canadian; I can explain to men of other lands why I am proud to be a Canadian because, as I said before, in the simplest and most direct language it is set out in a few brief lines that:
It is hereby recognized and declared that in Canada there have always existed and shall continue to exist the following human rights and fundamental freedoms, namely, the right of the individual to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law; the right of the individual to protection of the law without discrimination by reason of race, national origin, colour, religion or sex; freedom of religion; freedom of speech; freedom of assembly and association; and freedom of the press.
Mr. Speaker, no one in this house has suggested that our rights and liberties stop there, but it is true to say that on these foundations all our rights and liberties are built. I will vote for the bill, not because

in its terminology it is better than some other bill, not because through a process of logic I find it acceptable; I will vote for this bill and its principles because I believe in it.


Mr. E. W. Brunsden (Medicine Hat):: The
very interesting discussion which took place this morning produced an exchange between the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Walker) and the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) concerning the debating practices of 35 years ago and this brought to my mind a debate held about that time ago between a team from Oxford and Cambridge and a team from the University of Alberta. The resolution debated on that occasion was:
That in the opinion of this house there is a growing tendency on the part of government to invade the rights of individuals.
This growing tendency perhaps has been established in years gone by. This legislation seeks in my opinion to arrest that tendency. It cannot be denied that there is in this country a marked lack of knowledge as to the rights of individuals. I listened yesterday with a great deal of interest to the contribution made by the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort (Mr. Rapp). He spoke of new Canadians. He told us he was a new Canadian, and he asked us, in effect, to establish for him a statement of his rights and that this bill seeks to do.
May I say that I am a new Canadian. I was not born in this country. My father brought me to this country when I was a very small boy. From my recollections of his struggles, and from my observations over the years, I have come to the conclusion that there was discrimination in the early days of Canada against individuals. In my own part of the country we have a large number of farm operatives, labourers, and workers in various trades, who have come to Canada in recent years, and in the minds of many of these people there is a fear of the law, a fear of the police and, to a degree, a fear of the banks of this country.
Some of us can remember, when the war loans were being raised in the second world war, calling on farmer after farmer, trying to interest them in the purchase of war bonds. I had the experience of being successful in my endeavour to sell some of these bonds, and I recall that when I began to write out a cheque for the value of the bonds someone would say to me: No, I will not pay by cheque. Then he would disappear for a few moments, perhaps carrying a lantern with him, and return later with a tin full of bills, and he would pay for those bonds in cash. That was fear. It does seem to me, as one interested in persons of this type and as one who perhaps has the trust of some persons of this type, that it will be a lot easier for me

on my return home to be able to say to them: I can now explain to you very simply and very quickly what are your rights in Canada.
This in my opinion is a magnificent piece of proposed legislation. It clarifies a great number of questionings. It gives us something concise, something easy to explain to those who perhaps have not enjoyed the education which some of the rest of us have enjoyed, and the Prime Minister is to be heartily commended for his contribution.


Mr. W. F. Matthews (Nanaimo):: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to take part in this debate. I will just take a few minutes. The Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) expressed the hope that all members would have time to enter into this debate and I think the subject has been covered very nicely by a number of members who have spoken already. I have enjoyed it very much.
This bill has been well talked over, but there are one or two points I should like to make starting with a statement introduced by the Prime Minister about changing the nation to what it ought to be. That is just what the Prime Minister is attempting to do. Other words we have heard have been from the official opposition complaining about the wording and the preamble of this bill. The flowery words that are wanted by the members of the opposition are hardly in keeping with some of the things they have said during the times they have been on their feet. The leader of the official opposition, in what I understand was one of his first speeches, moved a very flowery amendment which is recorded in Hansard of 1957-58 at page 3520. I am not going to read it all, because it is very flowery, along the lines of what he thought at that time might go over well in the minds of the people of Canada. I will go down to the bottom of this, and read:
And in view of the desirability at this time of having a government pledged to implement Liberal policies;
His Excellency's advisers should, in the opinion of this house, submit their resignation forthwith.
After all, the Conservative government had been in office for seven months. They had been elected by the people of Canada and right away, after those seven short months, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) was of the opinion that they should step back and allow him to form a government. In other words, he put all the voters of Canada on the stand. He was criticizing the judgment they had made at that time. He could not sit still long enough to let them enjoy themselves.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Walter Franklyn Matthews: I know this is out of order, Mr. Speaker, so I will stop on that right now.
Human Rights


Mr. Speaker:: I am not interrupting the hon. member on that ground, but it is five o'clock and it is my duty to leave the chair so that the house may proceed with the consideration of private and public bills, the former having precedence, in accordance with the provisions of section 3 of standing order No. 15.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Before the house goes into committee to consider the bills which are down for consideration, I wonder whether hon. members would agree to refer all the others-there are 50 in my hand, and there are nine volumes to accompany this-and it may be more practical to have them all considered at the same time-


Mr. Speaker:: I am not sure I understand the hon. member's proposal.


Robert Jardine McCleave: I was going to suggest that the other bills be also referred to the committee at the same time so that they can all be considered together.


Mr. Speaker:: To the committee of the whole in one motion?


Robert Jardine McCleave: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Howard:: Does this apply to those bills set down for resumed consideration in committee?


Robert Jardine McCleave: No, just those not yet referred to the committee, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: There would be some convenience in preparing orders of the day if one order covered all of the bills already referred or to be referred which would be all of the divorce bills except those standing for resumed second reading or second reading. If the house would agree to substitute an order for all bills now before the committee or to be referred to the committee to be taken under one order it would simplify the orders of the day. It would be unnecessary to number the bills and one order would cover the bills before the committee.


Mr. Peters:: I presume that each second reading would be referred to the committee and not those bills already on the order paper?


Mr. Speaker:: The proposal is to consolidate in one order for reference to the committee of the whole house those bills which are already before the committee and those which stand for reference to the committee. That would include all the items down to order No. 375 to be consolidated in one motion, with the exception of order No. 366 which is not a divorce bill. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It is so ordered then. All the divorce bills before the committee will stand referred in one motion.

Private Bills PRIVATE BILLS


The Deputy Chairman:: Shall these be taken as one item?


William Arnold Peters: No.


Charles Edward Rea: The committee will then consider Bill No. SD-55.



MARIE ROSE NICOLA LAPENNA MCLAUGHLIN

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. SD-55, for the relief of Marie Rose Nicola Lapenna McLaughlin-Mr. McCleave-Mr. Rea in the chair.
William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, considerable interest has been expressed in the procedure with respect to this matter and it was referred to earlier by the-


Charles Edward Rea: Order. Perhaps I am anticipating what the hon. member is going to say. I will have to ask the hon. gentleman to come back to Bill No. SD-55.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, this marriage took place between two young people in the province of Quebec in 1954. At the time of marriage the petitioner was 16 years of age and the respondent 19 and the marriage lasted only between 5 and 6 months. In interrogating the petitioner about the reason why the marriage lasted for so short a time the following question was asked by Mr. Cohen, counsel for the petitioner, and the following reply was given by the petitioner:
Q. Will you tell the committee something about your married life, why you couldn't get along together?
A. After I got married I was very young and foolish, and I realized that I couldn't live that way. It was just a big mistake.
I do not understand what is meant by that answer. Also, I question that the committee of the other place should allow that type of answer. Since the committee of this house and the committee of the other place are replacing the function of the family court they should direct their attention to asking if a reconciliation can be achieved.


Charles Edward Rea: Order. I do not like to interrupt the hon. member again but we are not concerned with the procedure of the committee of the other place. We are concerned only with the procedure of this committee. I think the hon. member's remarks are not relevant to Bill No. SD-55.


William Arnold Peters: Normally these questions are asked in a stereotyped way. They take into consideration the problems to which I was relating this evidence. We have an obligation even if only an implied one to determine whether or not the petition should be granted not only on the grounds asked for but in the

interests of the country and the people concerned. It is not necessary to grant a petition if it is not in the interests of the parties concerned. Despite the brief marriage there was a child. The questioning on this point was as follows:
Q. Who is she living with?
A. She is living with myself and I am living with my parents.
Q. You are working?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you ever discuss divorce with your husband?
A. No.
Q. Since the date of the alleged adultery on the 22nd of May, 1959 have you ever had sexual relations with your husband?
A. No.
Q. Could you tell us something about the 22nd day of May, 1959 at 647 Woodland, apartment 3?
A. I went there and George and Rita were living as man and wife.
Q. You went to Woodland Avenue for what purpose?
A. I wanted support for my daughter.
Q. Had your husband been contributing towards your daughter?
A. No.
Q. And you went down to speak to him personally?
A. Yes.
Q. Who did you find when you arrived there?
A. He was there with this girl by the name of Rita, and they were dressed in pyjamas and nightgown.
Q. What time of day was this?
A. About 9 p.m.
Q. Did you speak to your husband about support for the child?
A. I did.
Q. Did you ask him if he was living there?
A. Yes, and he said he was living with this woman.
Q. Since the 22nd of May, 1959 have you ever lived as man and wife with Mr. McLaughlin?
A. No.
Q. Is there any hope of reconciliation in this marriage?
A. No.
Q. How about it in the future?
A. No.
Q. Did you place Rita Lauzon in front of your husband? Did you introduce her?
A. I never saw her before.
By the Chairman (Senator Croll) :
Q. You had never seen her until that night?
A. I never seen her before that night.
Q. Did you forgive this situation after you had seen it?
A. No.
By Senator Gershaw:
Q. Did you encourage your husband to go with this other woman?
A. No.
Q. Tell me a little more about what you actually saw when you went into that house.
A. They were both there-they were lying down.
Q. What kind of house was it?
A. A little apartment.
Q. How many rooms?
A. It had about three rooms I guess.
Q. You went in there at nine o'clock and what did you see?
A. I saw that this woman and George were sitting down on the bed with pyjamas and nightgown on.
Q. They were sitting on the bed.

A. When I walked in they had been in bed-the bed was messed.	,
I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that she is not nearly as good or precise a witness as most of the detectives because she stated several things here which do not correspond with the questions asked by the senator. The answers are not the same as those in reply to the questions by Mr. Cohen. Mr. Cohen is the legal counsel in this case. I have not found anything wrong with his interrogation so far but I would point out I understand it is being said in Montreal that Mr. Cohen is the only lawyer who can get a divorce through this house. I should like to point out that this must be only because he files his divorces early in the session. It has nothing to do with any action in this house. Mr. Cohen is in no privileged position. In my opinion his questioning in a number of cases has not been such as to warrant him being accepted as the only legal counsel. The questioning was continued by Senator Kinley as follows:
Q. When you went to this apartment, who let you in?
A. My husband came and opened the door.
Q. What do you work at?
A. I work at the Bank of Montreal.
Q. You don't have to be away at nights for your work?
A. No.
By the Chairman (Senator Croll):
Q. Why did you go to that house on Woodland avenue on the day in question?
A. I wanted support for my daughter.
Q. But how did you know that he was living there?
A. I did not know. I phoned up where he worked at the railway and they told me that is his home address. So I went there.
Q. Is that the first time you knew where he
was living?
A. Yes.
Q. From the time you separated had you seen your husband?
A. No.
Q. From the time you separated you had not seen him until that night?
A. I don't know; I don't think I had.
Q. Had you spoken to him?
A. No.
Q. Had he been supporting the daughter at all?
A. No. never did.
Q. Why didn't you ask him sooner for support?
A. Because I thought I could manage, and it just came the time I couldn't any more. I thought I could get more help this way and it would be easier.
Q. Did he agree to help you?
A. Not particularly.
Q. What does that mean?
A. He just said no, I guess.
Q- The best test is, did he send you any money for your daughter?
A. No, he did not.


Mr.   Cohen@: Mr. Chairman, I note an amendment is required to paragraph 8 under the rules. May I read paragraph 8 into the record:
"That there has been no separation agreement for any financial agreement in existence between the petitioner and the respondent, George Alfred McLaughlin.''
Private Bills
I would suggest that this particular paragraph having been inserted in the record here would indicate to me that Mr. Cohen is not doing right by some of his clients, particularly when he has brought a number of cases before this house, by finding it necessary to insert this type of clause rather than make the arrangements that are made by some of the other counsel in cases that we have handled. The questioning continued by Mr. Cohen:
Q. Have you ever taken any action in the superior court in Montreal?
A. No.
Q. Has there been-


Robert Jardine McCleave: Will the hon. member permit a question. Instead of making remarks such as he has just made, has he not noticed that the petition is dated long before the new Senate rules came into effect? I do not think he is justified in making those unjustified slurs.


William Arnold Peters: I am not making any unjustified slurs. I am aware of the fact that the Senate has decided that these questions will be asked and these decisions will be made, and that has come about because of action taken by this house in many cases. What I am saying in plain English is that there were no financial arrangements made in the courts of Quebec where they deal with these problems. Because of this action it is very unlikely that action will be taken by the same courts. I do not think this has any relationship to what the Senate does in these particular cases. I continue with the questioning:
Q. Has there been any financial arrangement on behalf of your husband for the support of your child?
A. No.


Charles Edward Rea: Order. The financial arrangements are no concern of this committee. I am sure the hon. member knows that.


William Arnold Peters: I continue:
By Senator Gershaw:
Q. Mrs. McLaughlin, are you going to be able to look after this child and see that she is-
I will abide by your ruling, Mr. Chairman. This matter of assistance is kind of confused and intermingled with many of the other remarks in this particular case. No doubt it is the result of questioning by a number of people on the same subject. I continue:
Q. You are living with your parents?
A. Yes. my mother and father.
Q. You were working previous to your marriage?
A. Yes.
Q. And you continued to work after your marriage?
A. Yes.

Private Bills
Q. Even after your child was born?
A. Yes.
Q. How did you arrange about looking after the home?
A. My mother.
Q. You have always lived with your mother?
A. Yes.
By the Chairman (Senator Croll):
Q. You were married in January, 1954, and the marriage appears to have broken up in April, 1954. You were 16 when you were married, and if I remember correctly, you told us you left?
A. Yes.
Q. Was I wrong on that?
A. That is right.
Q. Just tell us what happened?
A. I just couldn't go on-everything was so silly. We didn't get along. I didn't realize what I had got into. Then I stopped and realized it, and I thought I had better grow up and go home to my mother. We fought all the time.
Q. How long had you known him before you were married?
A. Not quite a year.
This, of course, could lead to generalizing in another field, but I think it would be of some advantage to these people if they had gone to the right welfare agency or family court. It is unfortunate that some of these lawyers like Mr. Cohen, who has had great experience, have not seen fit to send these people to these agencies rather than accept a case at so much a month. I will respect your ruling, Mr. Chairman, and not discuss the little girl.
George Alfred McLaughlin the respondent, appeared as a witness on behalf of the petitioner, and, having been duly sworn, testified as follows:
By the Clerk of the Committee:
Q. What is your full name?
A. George Alfred McLaughlin.
Q. What is your age?

Q. Where do you live?
A. 647 Woodland, apartment 3, Montreal.
Q. What is your occupation?
A. Electrician.
By the Chairman (Senator Croll):
Q. Mr. McLaughlin, listen to me carefully. Before you proceed, it is my duty to inform you that you are not liable to be asked or bound to answer any question tending to show that you are guilty of adultery, unless you have already given evidence in this proceeding in disproof of your alleged adultery. While you are not liable to be asked or bound to answer any question tending to the proof of your own adultery, you have the right to do so if you see fit-that is your right and privilege-in which event everything you say will be told voluntarily and not under any compulsion. Do you understand your position in this regard?
A. Yes. sir.
How much better is the reading of this warning than the system that appears to be in effect in Ontario where it is the practice to take pictures of corespondents without the use-


Charles Edward Rea: Order.


Robert Jardine McCleave: I submit that the hon. member is clearly out of order. He has referred to Ontario and that may be out of order too.


William Arnold Peters: One out of order may cancel the other out of order. I continue:
Q. Mr. McLaughlin, are you living and having sexual relations with one Rita Lauzon?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And in particular on the 22nd day of May, 1959, at 647 Woodland, apartment 3, in the province of Quebec, were you living as man and wife with one Rita Lauzon?
A. Have been for the past year.
Q. Were you married to the petitioner. Rose Nicola Lapenna, and on what date were you married?
A. January 2, 1954.
Q. Are you supporting the child of that union in any way?
A. No.
By the Chairman (Senator Croll):
Q. Mr. McLaughlin, you lived together with your wife for six months?
A. Yes.
Q. Why did the marriage break up at that time?
A. Well, why make my life miserable and my wife's life miserable when we can't get along? The woman I am living with now I love and I would like to marry her.
Q. You did not love your wife?
A. No. Let us say it was a marriage of convenience.
Q. What do you mean by that?
A. We had to have a name for the baby.
Then Rita Mary Lauzon appeared as a witness on behalf of the petitioner and was duly sworn. She gave this testimony:
By the Clerk of the Committee:
Q. What is your name?
A. Rita Mary Lauzon.
Q. What is your age?

Q. Where do you live?
A. 647 Woodland avenue, apartment 3.
Q. In what city?
A. Verdun, Quebec.
Q. What is your occupation?
A. Switchboard operator.
By the Chairman (Senator Croll):
Q. Miss Lauzon, will you listen to what I have to say. Before you proceed it is my duty to inform you that you are not liable to be asked or bound to answer any questions tending to show that you are guilty of adultery-
Then he goes on to give the warning which in my opinion is an indication that some of the rights of these people are being protected. They do not have to give evidence that will tend to incriminate them. In other words, they are given the same right as under the United States fifth amendment and under the Canada Evidence Act.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Will the hon. member permit a question? Will he not agree that these rights go back a long way in history and are not a development of recent times?


William Arnold Peters: Certainly. Having listened to the history of these rights, I am quite happy

to agree that they go back much farther. I think the Senate very likely used as a precedent the warning of the Canada Evidence Act which has been adapted to these circumstances but I am quite sure the history of the matter goes back a long time. I do not say that this is a bad thing. I agree that this warning is fair and just because these people are testifying to an act which can be interpreted to be contrary to canon law and in some cases is against civil and criminal law also. Mr. Cohen asked these questions:
Q. Miss Lauzon, are you committing adultery, and more particularly on the 26th day of May, 1959, at 647 Woodland avenue, apartment 3, with George Alfred McLaughlin?
A. That is right.
By the chairman (Senator Croll):
Q. How long have you been living with him as man and wife?
A. Since the end of March, 1959.
Q. Is that when you first knew him?
A. No.
Q. How long did you know him before that?
A. In January.
Q. You have been living with him since the end of March. Do you recall the occasion when Mrs. McLaughlin was at your apartment?
A. Around the 22nd of May.
Then the transcript is certified to be a correct transcript of the shorthand notes of the evidence in this case as taken by the reporter.
This is a very interesting case and one to which some consideration should be given. In my memory I believe that this is one of the first cases where both the respondent and the corespondent have testified to the fact that they committed adultery. I think this raises a point in that the inference could be drawn, although the hon. member for Halifax may object, that the divorce was wanted more by the respondent and the corespondent than by the petitioner.
It has been generally conceded in law that a confession voluntarily given will carry considerable weight except in those cases where the confession would tend to create a situation that the parties themselves wish created. In other words, this confession will give to the man what he says he wants and in that regard I would quote again the following question and answer:
Q. Why did the marriage break up at that time?
A. Well, why make my life miserable and my wife's life miserable when we can't get along? The woman I am living with now I love and I would like to marry her.
In this case we have him stating a motive that may have influenced his confession at this time. I suggest that we should give serious consideration to this type of confession because as a result the respondent is granted the relief that he has said he wishes.
Private Bills
We can see how it would be quite easy to accomplish this result by making arrangements to pay for the divorce if there was violent exception by the plaintiff that the divorce should be given to her and the expenses paid and she would act as the injured party in this case. I am not saying that is the situation because I do not know but it has been generally conceded that confessions that have a stated motive should be looked at with some care because of the fact that they tend not to be in the public interest in that they may cause people to perjure themselves in order to get relief that they could not otherwise get.
I am not saying that this is the case in this instance. I think this young man has indicated that he has some responsibility with respect to his relationship to his wife. It was a shotgun marriage, a marriage by arrangement. He married the young girl only to give the child a name. He accomplished that and I presume there may have been some discussion at that time that if he carried his responsibility that far there would be no further problem. Probably the arrangement was carried out equally well by both parties until the young lady reached the time when she again wanted to try her hand in the matrimonial realm, distasteful as it may have been to her in the first place. It is not usual for both the corespondent and respondent to come forward and, taking advantage of the full protection of the law, make such an admission involving testimony that they have committed adultery. If this happens in too many cases I think we will be warranted in taking a very close look at the situation because it could be an indication that divorces were being sought by arrangement and as a result we should not necessarily give too much weight to the evidence of the witnesses and the confession they voluntarily make.
I notice the hon. member for Edmonton West is questioning this statement. His legal mind may not recognize the fact that people would do this. I am quite sure that voluntary confessions are acceptable. In reading some of the studies on divorce laws I note that there is a warning that this type of voluntary confession should be given close scrutiny in order to know that other particulars would tend to establish that this situation of adultery was existing separately from the confessions themselves. I would point out-


Mr. Lambert:: I wonder whether the hon. gentleman is aware of the fact that many courts trying divorce cases in this country insist on the two parties coming in and that they do not take the confession of one person. That is precisely the point about which the hon. gentleman is talking.

Private Bills


Charles Edward Rea: Order. The committee cannot allow discussion of procedure in other places.
Mn Peters: I was pleased to have that answer because my hon. friend is a learned counsel and I am not. The education we get is valuable. We shall try to remember it.


Norman Platt Lambert: I hope you will profit by it.


William Arnold Peters: In the argument we were making I should like to point out that in this particular case the young lady in question did go to the apartment, she did find them living there, she did establish through the hearing an arrangement as to-


Charles Edward Rea: Order. I must advise the hon. member that his time has expired.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, a certain remark was made by the hon. member for Timiskaming and it is my duty to answer inquiries such as that. The remark or suggestion was that one Montreal lawyer was able to get his divorce cases through parliament. This is a most unjust inference against parliament and against the lawyer himself. The fact is that since the start of this session we have followed religiously the numbers from one to the present point of 55. Perhaps I am a little bit out of order but I would raise this point on a question of privilege. The situation has become so bad, because of the lobby created by this filibuster, that I will not under any circumstances-


Charles Edward Rea: Order.


Robert Jardine McCleave: I will raise the matter as a question of privilege.


Charles Edward Rea: I cannot allow those remarks. They are not relevant to Bill No. SD-55. Shall clause 1 carry?


Charles Benjamin Howard: Inasmuch as a question of privilege was raised and, in my opinion, it is an extremely important one, I think perhaps a little bit of laxity in the enforcement of the rules at this stage might be extremely advantageous to all concerned.


Charles Edward Rea: Order. The Chair has made its ruling. Shall clause 1 carry?


Charles Benjamin Howard: No, Mr. Chairman. There are one or two points I should like to make here. I should have liked to make a comment or two at this stage or at some other stage about the individual in this case who is the lawyer and some of the statements that he has been making or is reputed to have been making in Montreal. If they are true, this is most unfair procedure on the part of the gentleman himself. If he is making these statements I think he should be severely reprimanded for them inasmuch as he is

implying that there is some improper arrangement between himself and members of this house. If these rumours are incorrect and the gentleman in question, namely Mr. Cohen, has not been making these statements, then at once I say that whatever reflections I may have cast upon him by even making slight reference to the matter are immediately withdrawn. But, as I say, if he is making these statements he should be called to task for doing so inasmuch as he is suggesting that there are improprieties in his relationships with members of this house; and those improprieties are not confined to any one member alone but take into account every person here. If, as is the case, these particular cases which have been passed and endorsed have been ones in which the particular gentleman, Mr. Cohen, was the lawyer, it is only because they came up in that particular order.
With respect to this individual case, Mr. Chairman, I should like to make one or two comments in order to point out what I think are some conflicts which may or may not be serious. Nevertheless they are conflicts in the evidence given and they should be looked at. Where there is a conflict in the evidence that is given, while that conflict in itself may be on a relatively minor thing nevertheless it puts one in the position of wondering whether other points in the evidence are absolutely correct. In this regard I must make reference to the petition itself which is dated at Montreal, the 28th day of May, 1959. This petition shows as follows, and I am reading now from paragraph No. 1:
1. That on the 2nd day of January, 1954, your petitioner was lawfully married to the said-
And it gives here the name of the husband.
-at St. Monicas parish church, in the city of Montreal, district of Montreal, in the province of Quebec.
In the petition itself there are additional references to which I should like to make reference later. But this particular one has some interest here. It is as to when the marriage took place and the ages of the individuals at the time of the marriage. The petitioner, as was indicated or as is shown in the evidence at page 9, appeared as a witness, was sworn and gave certain testimony as to her age. I think I must make specific reference here to the question asked by the clerk of the committee. He asks:
Q. What is your age?

Then they go on to her occupation, where she lives where she was married and to whom and she indicates in the affirmative in those cases and identifies the marriage certificate. She is asked some questions by Mr. Cohen with respect to this particular

point with which I want to deal. Toward the bottom of page 9 Mr. Cohen asks her the following questions:
Q. I note that you were married in January, 1954, and you separated five or six months later?
A. Yes.
Q. How old were you when you were married?

Q. And your husband?

At the time of the marriage in 1954, some six years ago, the petitioner was 16 and the respondent in this case was 19. There was in fact three years difference in their ages. On January 28, 1960 her age is given as 23; but of course this is seven years later rather than six. This difference is easily understood. However, the respondent appears as a witness. He is sworn. As reported at page 12 he gives this evidence:
Q. What is your full name?
And he gives his name. Then he is asked this question:
Q. What is your age?

This is the conflict I say exists between these references as to how old these individuals were. The young lady, the petitioner, was 16 when she was married. She is now 23. Her husband was 19-that is three years older than she was-at the time of marriage and he is only 23 now. I submit that he should be, in evidence, either 25 or 26-one year does not make much difference- depending on when his birthday is. He should be either 25 or 26 now or he should have been 16 or 17 at the time he was married. But this is not the case. He said that he is 23 now.
It is true that he may not have told his wife at the time of their marriage just exactly what his correct age was at that time. He may have indicated to her that he was older than he actually was. This is something we do not know. I think it is one aspect of the conflict which should have been pursued by those who took this particular testimony and asked the questions, because while it may not be relevant specifically to the point, nevertheless where there is a conflict of evidence steps should be taken to clear it up in order that no impression will be left that there are other points in the evidence that are not absolutely correct.
The respondent in this case is obviously not getting younger as the years go by and perhaps he did not tell his wife his true age when they were married in 1954, because it was her evidence that indicated he was 19 at that time, but that conflict should have been cleared up before the matter was proceeded with.
Private Bills
Now I refer to a matter which concerns the inconsistencies of approach of the gentleman asking the questions, in this instance Mr. Cohen. Mr. Chairman, you remember we had some discussion about this point the other day and I make reference to it now only because it is germane to the question of adultery. It concerns the permissibility of counsel asking questions about a specific instance of adultery. I understand it is not permissible for counsel to do that, yet it is done in some cases and not in others. I would have thought that Mr. Cohen, who has spent some time in dealing with these matters and is well versed in questions of law and matters he might encounter before the committee of the other place, would certainly have been consistent in his questioning.
On page 12 of the report the respondent is advised by the chairman, Senator Croll, that he is not liable to be asked nor bound to answer any questions tending to incriminate himself as far as adultery is concerned. After the witness says he understands that Mr. Cohen asks, "Are you living and having sexual relations with"-giving the name of the corespondent and the witness answers "Yes, sir". That is a direct question which I think, so far as tending to prove or not to prove adultery is concerned, perhaps should be asked in all instances where there is an arrangement, a so-called common law arrangement where a couple are living together as man and wife. This question specifies particularly what he is getting at if they are going to continue to base the granting of divorces on the question of whether or not adultery has been committed.
Then he asks a question which is specifying it to a degree, namely to the particular day indicated in the petition as being the day upon which adultery took place. Here I refer to paragraph No. 7 on page 5 of the petition, which says:
On or about the 22nd day of May, 1959-
At a particular address.
-the said-
Giving the name of the respondent.
-committed adultery with-
Giving the name of the corespondent and the same address for each. Mr. Cohen makes a reference to the day and asks the question:
And in particular, on the 22nd day of May, 1959 at-
Giving the same address as that shown in the petition.
-in the province of Quebec, were you living as man and wife with one-
Giving the name of the corespondent.
A. Have been for the past year.

Private Bills
Then he asks whether he was married to the petitioner, and so on.
So that while Mr. Cohen starts off on the question of adultery or sexual relations, which is pinpointing what he is getting at, he does not follow it through and attempt to specify the particular date, at least not in his questioning of the respondent. I think perhaps Mr. Cohen felt it was in order and desirable to prove a particular point and ask whether or not they were having sexual relations with one another, but he should follow it through and ask the self-same question about sexual relations on that particular day. There is an inconsistency there in Mr. Cohen's approach.
However, he does a little better when the corespondent appears. The corespondent appeared as a witness, and she was sworn and gave certain information about her age, name, occupation, and so on. She is also advised by Senator Croll that she need not be asked any questions nor need she answer them as far as committing adultery is concerned. In any event, she indicates she understands the position in that regard and desires to proceed and answer the questions. Then Mr. Cohen asks her directly whether she is committing adultery, "and more particularly on the 26th day of May, 1959", and she answers "That is right".
I do not know, why Mr. Cohen in one instance makes reference in a general question to having sexual relations, mentioning those words specifically, but when he comes to particularize on the day when the sexual relations were supposed to have been committed he backs away from it and makes reference only to people living together as man and wife. That is what happens as far as the respondent is concerned. But when he questions the corespondent he now particularizes and says, "Are you committing adultery, and more particularly on the 26th day of May, 1959", and the corespondent indicates that that is right, that she is committing adultery, and particularly on the 26th day of May, 1959.
I do not know what the 26th day of May has to do with it because that is not the day on which it is alleged adultery took place, at least not according to the evidence which was given. The petition indicates that adultery took place four days before that, notably on the 22nd day of May, 1959. Yet when Mr. Cohen asks a specific question about it he says "Did you commit adultery on the 26th day of May?", which is four days later. I presume that Mr. Cohen thinks that that falls within the expression "On or about the 22nd of May", but I submit he could have chosen the 22nd, the

20th, the 21st, the 23rd, the 24th or the 25th. As I say, I fail to see a consistency of approach. I do not see why he did not deal with the words "sexual relations" when he asked about that particular day, May 22. I do not see why he did not use that same phrase "sexual relations", because he started to deal with that when he asked the corespondent this particular question; but when he particularizes he talks about another day entirely, which was four days after it was alleged that this particular event took place. The petitioner herself, when she appears as a witness, is asked, as appears on page 10:
Can you tell us something about May 22, 1959?
Then an address is mentioned, and the answer is given:
I went there. George and Rita were living there as man and wife.
The names given are the Christian names of the respondent and the corespondent. Then the witness says they were in pyjamas and indicates that certain circumstances existed. It was on May 22 that she saw these activities, yet Mr. Cohen saw fit to talk about May 26, some four days after these events were supposed to have occurred. Apart from that, we were advised about a week ago, I think, that it is most improper for counsel, at least in a court of law, to ask specific questions of that nature as to whether or not people commit adultery on a particular date. Yet Mr. Cohen disregarded that rule of the court and asked those specific questions in this instance. He fumbles them, anyway, and gets the dates wrong and backs away from the question of sexual relations and refers to these people living as man and wife on a particular day.
I submit that it should be quite acceptable, at least in this area where we are not a court of law, to admit general evidence of this kind, but if we are going to continue this practice of granting divorces through parliament, as we shall at least for a day or two- though next session, if this is not dealt with, and no one has the courage to make an announcement-


Charles Edward Rea: Order.


Charles Benjamin Howard: If we should continue this practice, I think that in cases where there is this so-called common law man and wife relationship we should insist in every instance that specific questions are asked by counsel or by members of the other place with regard to sexual relationship on a specific day. If we do not do that we are making a mockery of the word adultery and of just what it means in fact. We would be holding on to the word adultery because of some nebulous thoughts that we have about not wanting to

offend some sections of society. If we are going to deal with adultery, we should deal with adultery, period, and deal with the question of sexual relations as Mr. Cohen started off to do. It is not a question of whether a person is dressed in pyjamas or a housecoat, or circumstances of that nature; another kind of evidence must be given if we are going to hang on to this nebulous ground of adultery as a ground for divorce. We should not delude ourselves. Certainly we are not deluding the general public who know very well that adultery means absolutely nothing-it only means being caught in certain circumstances.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Clearly out of order. The case is a specific one.


Charles Benjamin Howard: We are dealing with this
specific case, Mr. Chairman.
I should like to deal with another inconsistency if I may, and this has relation to pages 10 and 11. This is concerned with the reasons why the petitioner went to this particular place on this particular day and discovered, as she said in her evidence, circumstances which might lead one to believe that a sexual relationship had been engaged in. On page 10 the following questions are asked by Mr. Cohen and answered by the witness:
Q. Can you tell us something about the 22nd day of May 1959 at-
A. I went there and George and Rita were living there as man and wife.
Q. You went to-for what purpose?
A. I wanted support for my daughter.
Q. Had your husband been contributing towards your daughter?
A. No.
Q. And you went down to speak to him personally?
A. Yes.
Q. Who did you find when you arrived there?
A. He was there with this girl by the name of Rita, and they were dressed ini pyjamas and a nightgown.
Q. What time of day was this?
A. About 9 p.m.
Perhaps they believed in the saying "Early to bed, and early to rise". In any event, the examination continues:
Q. Did you speak to your husband about support for the child?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Did you ask him if he was living there?
A. Yes, and he said he was living with this woman.
Then they go on to speak about reconciliation and so on. The point I wish to make is that she indicated she went there in connection with support for her daughter. She is asked questions later on about this by Senator Farquhar-


Charles Edward Rea: Order. It being six o'clock shall I rise and report progress?
Progress reported.
Human Rights HUMAN RIGHTS



MEASURE PROVIDING FOR RECOGNITION AND PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Diefenbaker for second reading of Bill No. C-79, to provide for the recognition and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Winch.
Mr. Speaker:: It being six o'clock I do now leave the chair.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
Walter Franklyn Matthews: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon at five o'clock I started in confusion and astonishment. I was under the impression that the C.C.F. group had given permission to have private bills put aside so we could proceed with this debate. You can imagine my confusion. I rose in haste and began to speak. I then noticed that Your Honour grew a little uneasy and rose in your chair. I had begun talking about what the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) had said in 1958 so I began to suspect that I was out of order in speaking on that subject. That concluded my first attempt at speaking on this bill. I am now prepared to start over again and see what happens.
When I was interrupted I was saying that the Leader of the Opposition probably did not oppose this bill and that he like all the others would vote for it. I referred hon. members to page 3520 of Hansard of January 20, 1958. On that occasion the Leader of the Opposition moved an amendment suggesting that the Conservative party stand down and let the famous Liberals come back into office.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is what should be done now.


Walter Franklyn Matthews: That was a dressed-up speech. The hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) claims that this bill of rights is not sufficiently dressed up. The simplicity of the language of this bill offends the hon. gentleman and he would like to see it dressed up in fancy language. I imagine that he could do it very nicely, too, because the hon. gentleman is very clever at that sort of thing. I am sure that if he were to draft a bill of rights it would be extremely flowery. However, that is beside the point.
The Liberal party has been quite flowery all along the line. Following the splendid

Human Rights
budget address made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) in 1958 the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Beni-dickson) rose in his place and became very flowery. He observed that the Minister of Finance was dressed in a nice blue suit with an attractive blue flower in his lapel. This apparently confused the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River somewhat so he immediately called it a blue budget. In other words, the hon. gentleman wanted to doll up the budget in the proper way with what he considered to be appropriate words.
In the budget debate in 1960 the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River made a similar attempt. There was no blue suit on that occasion to inspire him and I imagine he felt rather badly about it. I suppose he thought back to the cold porridge of his childhood so he characterized the budget with those words. That is what hon. gentlemen opposite do. They always want to doll these things up.
There is one notable exception to this rule, I refer to the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer). That hon. gentleman was talking about the cancellation of aircraft. He did not start out by being flowery at all. He could have discussed some technical shortcoming in the aircraft and said the fuselage was no good, that the proper cord was not on the upper wing or that the tail gate was not just right. Instead of that, however, the hon. gentleman said it was no ruddy good. That is the type of flowery language in which that hon. gentleman indulges.
I have very little to say about this bill. I am keenly interested in it and am proud of the fact that it was introduced by the Prime Minister on July 1. We on this side enjoy that fact very much and I know that hon. members in the opposition parties enjoy it as well. We went out on the front lawn of the parliament buildings and watched the trooping of the colour. In the evening we witnessed a parade of sea cadets. These things brought home to us the fact that these men are engaged in the defence of our nation, just as many hon. members of this house served this country well in various wars in defence of our freedom. This bill goes to the very root of our freedom.
This bill contains no small print. It is written in language everyone will be able to understand. We do not want the flowery approach at all. This bill of rights needs no special cover, no special container to sell it to thinking Canadians. It is not a piece of merchandise such as a box of candy or a bottle of scotch that needs a label trimmed with gold or a bright red ribbon around it to promote its sale. The special ingredient of value to the people of Canada is laid out

very clearly in the wording of the bill itself. Consider these words in Bill No. C-79:
An act tor the recognition and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms.
That is plain enough for anyone to understand. I continue:
1.	This part may be cited as the Canadian bill of rights.
2.	It is hereby recognized and declared that in Canada there have always existed and shall continue to exist the following human rights and fundamental freedoms, namely,
(a)	the right of the individual to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law;
(b)	the right of the individual to protection of the law without discrimination by reason of race, national origin, colour, religion or sex;
(c)	freedom of religion;
(d)	freedom of speech;
(e)	freedom of assembly and association; and
(f)	freedom of the press.
Those freedoms mean a great deal to us. I was quite interested in an article in the Ottawa Journal of June 14, 1960 entitled "Refugees Pay Big Price for Freedom". The article goes on to speak about the thousands of people that escape from communist countries whenever they can taking nothing with them. All they look for is freedom. This brings home to us the very important fact that Canada is and has been for many years a land of freedom. Some interesting and important statements have been made about freedoms. Thomas Jefferson said of the three freedoms:
Freedom of religion, freedom of the press and freedom of person under the protection of the habeas corpus, these are principles that have guided our steps through an age of revolution and reformation.
Franklin D. Roosevelt said of the freedom of religion:
Where freedom of religion has been attacked, the attack has come from sources opposed to democracy. Where democracy has been overthrown, the spirit of free worship has disappeared. And where religion and democracy have vanished, good faith and reason in international affairs have given way to strident ambition and brute force.
I will not read out the words of this bill because all hon. members know them but I will tell hon. members of the opposition that the bill needs no flowery words and no fancy package to sell it to the people of Canada because it is not for sale. It is free to all the people of Canada.


Mr. Paul Tardif (Russell):: Mr. Speaker,
the previous speaker said that at five o'clock he began his speech in confusion. I am not a bit surprised at that. After listening to the remarks made by the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Walker) the hon. gentleman should have been confused because the minister made a speech that was extremely confusing.

Actually I know that the hon. member tor Nanaimo (Mr. Matthews) will be readily forgiven by this house because other hon. members listened to the speech made by the Minister of Public Works and I can assure hon. gentlemen that if I were one to be easily confused I, like the hon. member for Nanaimo, would have been confused as well.
The Minister of Public Works this afternoon referring to the Gettysburg address by Lincoln said it was couched in a language of great simplicity, of great purity and not in the bombastic, arrogant and pompous language which the hon. members of the opposition would suggest. I have listened to most of the speeches delivered in this house today on this bill and I know that if any speech has been made to which those adjectives could be applied it was the speech made by the Minister of Public Works.
It is not the intention of the opposition to have a bill of rights written in a bombastic, arrogant or pompous manner. I would suggest that it would be more in order if the Minister of Public Works had stated that the opposition would like to see a bill of rights written in ordinary prose that could be understood and appreciated by all the citizens of Canada and of which all the citizens could be proud. As an example, it might have gone something like this:
Her Majesty, with the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, reaffirms the fundamental rights which the dignity of man requires for every individual, not the least of which is the right to life, liberty, security of the person and the enjoyment of property.
To secure these and our other rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their powers from the consent of the governed and their authority from the crown. It pleases Her Majesty, with her parliament in Canada, to rededicate the principle that no government ought to prejudice these rights by jeopardizing freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of peaceable assembly and association, or freedom of the press.
Actually the Minister of Public Works stated this afternoon, and I quote:
But no one has suggested even in a vague form what questions could or should be asked of the supreme court-questions upon which any court could express an opinion that would assist in determining the lines of a bill of rights to be enacted by the Canadian parliament.
I think the Minister of Public Works is suffering from a short memory because Professor Bora Laskin, who is recognized as a constitutional authority, made an offer and said that he was willing to draft a question that could be submitted to the Supreme Court of Canada, and did so publicly at a meeting at which the Minister of Public Works was in attendance.
The Minister of Public Works also stated this afternoon that at the provincial-federal
Human Rights
conference in 1950 an attempt had been made to arrive at a satisfactory amending formula to overcome the necessity of going to the United Kingdom for amendments. Actually the 1950 conference was looking for a formula to eliminate the necessity of going to the United Kingdom for all amendments, not necessarily to eliminate the necessity of going to the United Kingdom to get one amendment to the British North America Act. The question submitted to the conference at that time was considerably more complicated than asking for the power to make an amendment in order to introduce a bill of rights.
I was also impressed by the Prime Minister when he introduced this bill. He said with great emphasis that he was a Canadian. It is not difficult, Mr. Speaker, to assure the house that there are 17 million people in Canada who feel exactly the same way as does the Prime Minister. I am just as proud of being a Canadian as is the Prime Minister, and I am just as anxious to have my rights respected as is the Prime Minister to have legislation so that they will be respected.


An hon. Member:: Who wrote that for you?


Paul Tardif: I did myself, and if you can do as well as I am doing I shall tear up my notes and start all over again. I do not know who made the remark, Mr. Speaker, but I would appreciate it if a note were taken of it so that I can remember it in the future.


Edwin William Brunsden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman admits he is reading his speech.


Paul Tardif: I am reading quotations and I am doing exactly the same thing as the hon. member did, with the exception that I am reading only the quotations.
Reading Bill No. C-79, with my lack of legal knowledge, it appears that this legislation is going to be a real joy to the legal profession. It is a recognized fact-and I am not reading this-that lawyers are only 50 per cent correct. I can say this without fear of contradiction for several reasons. In the first place, there are very few lawyers in my constituency. In the second place, it is a recognized fact because it is so easy for anybody to find a lawyer who will be willing to assure his client that as the plaintiff he is right and it is so easy to find another lawyer who will assure the defendant that he is right. Lawyers are only 50 per cent right all the time. You can imagine, Mr. Speaker, because of your legal experience, what a field day lawyers will have with Bill No. C-79, which is difficult for men trained in the legal profession to understand.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Order.

Human Rights


Paul Tardif: Mr. Speaker, I think the point of order is well taken. I am speaking of all lawyers with the exception of those in the Liberal party.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I notice there are a great many lawyers here who are willing to help the hon. member to a better understanding of their profession but I hope they will maintain silence while he has the floor.


Paul Tardif: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Actually, this is not the first time that a bill of rights has been introduced in this house. On January 6, 1958 one was proposed by the opposition party and at that time the then parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Justice, the man who is now the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Walker), gave a great number of reasons why a bill of rights could not be introduced at that time. If I have the permission of the house I shall read part of the speech made by the Minister of Public Works who, as I said before, is suffering from a short memory, because he has entirely changed his views on a bill of rights from those which he had on January 6, 1958. Incidentally, I am about to quote from page 2892 of Hansard of January 6, 1958, in case anybody is interested:
First, should a bill be submitted to the Supreme Court of Canada and, if so, how?
In the speech that the Minister of Public Works made this afternoon he was not too concerned about this. I continue:
Should it be a draft bill, with the question asked as to whether it is within the jurisdiction of the federal parliament, keeping in mind, Mr. Speaker, that in constitutional law Canada is woefully lacking, as the hon. member I am sure will agree, in decisions on questions of this kind? In other words, where do the rights of the dominion cease under section 91 of the British North America Act and where do the rights of the provinces under section 92 begin, particularly when one discusses such abstract but very real values as freedom? Second, should we submit a series of questions to the supreme court? As my hon. friend no doubt is fully aware, to do so is very difficult because we must frame questions of law as distinct from questions of policy which latter, of course, the supreme court will not deal with.
Actually, since that time the Minister of Public Works stated it was impossible, or nobody could frame a question that could be submitted to the Supreme Court of Canada and I tell you that that is not so. I continue:
Third, should we have a parliamentary committee to explore and agree on a draft that will be suitable to parliament when it finally reaches parliament? Fourth, would it be premature to submit a draft to the supreme court and then, having their approval, come back to the house to find that it is not acceptable to hon. members, or should the government bypass the courts and reach rapport with the provinces by calling them into session, having a dominion-provincial conference on the question of a bill of rights in which

the property and civil rights of the provinces would be properly protected? Fifth, should the government itself draft a bill for the approval of and amendment by the provinces, send it to them and have them deal with it? Sixth, should we draft a strictly federal bill? Is this possible under the circumstances, in view of the property and civil rights of the provinces?
Actually this government has been in power more than three years, and during that time not a single letter went to a single province asking whether they would agree to a change or accept a formal bill of rights. The review made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefen-baker) when he presented the bill to the house was a great lesson in American history. A bill to assure civil liberties should have been based more on the experience of the commonwealth, using as its base the effectiveness of the protection of human rights in Great Britain, in Australia, in New Zealand and even in India which has had an independent government only since 1947.
In clause 2 of the bill there is mention of the right to the enjoyment of one's property. I am wondering whether that covers a person's property when it is a case of government expropriation as is now taking place in the green belt.
Subclause (d) of clause 2 refers to freedom of speech. Will that give the right to anyone to make a speech any place, any time and on any subject? Subclause (e) of clause 2 deals with freedom of assembly and association. Does this mean that public assemblies will be permitted for any purpose, at any time and in any place?
It is obviously indispensable that to protect people's rights and freedoms more than words are necessary. To this end, there should be a committee to scrutinize every order in council and regulation, as was advocated by the Prime Minister himself on November 23, 1945, and on September 22, 1949, and as quoted at some length by the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Badanai).
If the Prime Minister would study the vast experience of the commonwealth parliaments previously mentioned I know he would agree that it would be adequate, practical and desirable for every subordinate law designed to have general effect to stand referred to a scrutiny committee to be reviewed in the following respects: Whether questions of principles and policy are involved; where human rights and fundamental freedoms are affected; will it be in the power of the courts to review the validity of the subordinate laws. In this regard the scrutiny committee should have the power to report whether the order in council or regulation has any retroactive effect. The committee should report any lack of clarity. The committee should

check that all subordinate laws have been published and laid before parliament according to the Regulations Act of 1950. Finally, the committee should check whether or not regulations or orders impose a cost on public revenue or commit parliament to expenditures of any sort.
This committee should have the power to sit and to call for papers and witnesses. When I refer to witnesses I do not mean ministers because I think the place for them to give their opinions and views is in the house. The committee should have the power to report at any time. This committee should have as its adviser a highly competent parliamentary official such as the Clerk or one of his assistants or the parliamentary counsel. This type of assistance is necessary if the committee is to be effective in supervising the law-making activities of the expert and competent civil servants. We need more than words, Mr. Speaker, we need effective machinery to protect the rights of men.
(Translation):


Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolielie-L'Assompiion-Monicalm):: Mr. Speaker, I want to take the opportunity of this bill being introduced to say a few words.
Man can be man only so long as he is free.
This philosophical postulate could not be quoted more aptly than in the context of this discussion. Human rights are inherent to human nature. For instance the right to live and to think.
Even behind the iron curtain, the human brain cannot be prevented from thinking. In the darkest cell, the prisoner undeniably keeps his freedom of thought.
Unfortunately, in some countries, a man may not think aloud. Because he reasoned in a totalitarian state, that is in Russia, Dr. Zhivago led his author into bondage.
There is much suffering in being forgotten, but what satisfaction there is in finding the courage to express the truth after having thought and recognized it.
Mr. Speaker, thought is a divine spark. Because, if the soul is created directly by God, human intelligence is the most obvious proof that God made man in his own image. God wanted man to be free. Thus, the privileges of freedom and the rights he enjoys derive from God.
This theory having been set forth, let us put it in practice.
Canada is a country which believes in God. Its two great races have been cast in this crucible. Vast and beautiful country that it is, it has been given an appropriate motto A mari usque ad mare.
Human Rights
It is true that our country extends from the Atlantic to the Pacific; it is true that its citizens are rightly proud to belong to a young nation with a promising future.
An even greater truth is that it was the bible that inspired that motto, so inseparable are the human and supernatural aspirations of Canadians.
Various colours of the skin, different languages, various religions; those are but accidents. These are varieties in art.
While visiting our parliament, last week, General Bethouart closed his speech by saying something like this: "Let NATO follow the lead of Canada, which is so respectful of its freedoms and those of others, and success will be assured."
That was the statement of a great friend, taking the pulse of allied nations. He stops off here, and pays us that tribute.
Two days later, the right hon. Prime Minister took the floor and, in an historic speech, introduced his bill of rights. That was a noble way of celebrating Dominion day.
In Washington, tourists visiting the library of congress may stop a moment in front of a marble pedestal and read there, with respect, the American constitution.
Shortly, no doubt, visitors flocking to the Canadian parliament will stop to meditate on the declaration of rights, a bill bearing the mark of a great Canadian.
Totalitarian peoples believe in the state alone. The human person is but an individual.
Canada is a democratic country and owed it to itself to set down in this document its ideal of life, one for which men will willingly fight and lay down their lives: their freedom. In a word, I gladly support this bill.
(Text):


Mr. E. Nasserden (Rosthern):: Mr. Speaker, in the memory of every hon. member there are memorable events that have left an indelible mark on our lives. The present debate is one of those occasions that all of us will treasure. It will be something worth while and inspiring to hand down to the generations that follow. I suppose there are many definitions of freedom. Every individual in every separate circumstance knows, appreciates and believes in some measure of freedom. There is given to some, however, a measure of experience that lends depth, colour and substance to their appreciation of freedom.
I believe that the Prime Minister holds a unique position in that regard in this House of Commons. During the course of this debate I have been thinking back to my

Human Rights
boyhood, which was not too much different from that of a great number of Canadians who first had a taste of what freedom involved, through the expression of those things which, coming from others, told that there was a need for the recognition and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms.
The Canadian people have not yet taken on the full stature of nationhood. Ninety-three years have not constituted sufficient time in which to fulfill the promise that was declared and held within the articles of confederation. Those who advocate a constitutional amendment would find more sympathy for their stand were it not for the fact that there is every indication that this course will remain with the Canadian people for a long period of years as an objective which nevertheless could not serve to achieve the true interests of unity and nationhood at this particular time.
Those who have ventured to criticize the language of the bill would do well to remember that it is not a constitutional amendment but rather a setting of markers within which Canadians can chart their way closer to the constitutional unity that will mark the achievement of mature nationhood. Judging by the speeches of some members of the opposition, that achievement will require a further undetermined period of time. Indeed, in listening to the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Caron), one could almost visualize that measure of immaturity, provincial outlook and ignorance in which for many years the leaders of his party were able to shelve and delay the development and achievement of those spiritual and intellectual objectives by means of which people achieve true nationhood.
On this occasion you might ask: What is freedom? My answer might be that it is the development of a personality born to fulfil the ideal of light and reason that shone in the eyes of parents who knew that the realization and fulfilment of the ideals which were the objects of their search could not be found within the land from which they came; a personality that grew with the growth of a people; a personality that grasped their problems; a personality that shared their anxieties.
July 1, 1960 will mark a triumph shared by many Canadians, with the Prime Minister of Canada. The people of Canada know, as does everyone on the government benches, who championed the supremacy of parliament. Those who sit in the opposition today also know who nurtured that right when they were the invincible majority running roughshod and arrogant, mutilating justice and freedom here in Canada. Everyone knows how that personality persevered and almost

single-handed licked that proud majority. It is one of the epics of Canadian history and it will not be forgotten by the generations to come. When the history of this parliament is written and when all other measures considered are relegated to their respective pigeonholes, this Bill No. C-79 will, in its simple forthright language, light a torch of liberty and freedom that Canadians will hold close to their bosoms whenever stress and strain test the integrity of our citizenship or the fibre of our nationhood.
In repeating the Prime Minister's closing words "I am a Canadian", the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort (Mr. Rapp) spoke as would countless Canadians were they here tonight to do so. Last night and again this morning the hon. member for Inverness-Rich-mond (Mr. MacLellan) measured our need for an assertion of recognition and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms. His words echo the thoughts of countless Canadians today.
On this occasion when we are discussing freedom and what it means to us I wish to direct a few words to you, sir, as Speaker of this assembly. I think it fair to say that I have had occasion to look to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the chair in which you sit, with more than ordinary search and question. I should like you to know that it has been a comfort to observe how well you perform your duties. During this session I have come to have a growing reverence for the freedom that is symbolized by your position in our democracy.
On this occasion I should like to congratulate the Prime Minister first for his perseverance which kept the subject matter of this bill before the people of Canada throughout the years; second, for his eloquence and devotion which won the admiration and confidence of the Canadian people and brought them together so that this day was possible; third, because of his dedication to the cause of freedom which in Canada will ever bear the imprint of his encouragement and stature; and, finally, because he has been successful in returning to this historic party which commands the loyalty of the government benches the lighted torch that was kindled 93 years ago when the articles of confederation were in the making.


John Ferguson Browne: Mr. Speaker, I consider it a great honour and privilege to be in the House of Commons and to be able to take part in this debate which has produced some of the finest speeches I have heard since I have been here. It is indeed only fitting that a matter as important as is the one we are discussing this evening should produce speeches of that kind.

I may say that the course of this debate has been somewhat disappointing to me because when the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) made known his intention to introduce this bill I felt it presented a rich opportunity for this parliament to make this declaration of our fundamental freedoms and human rights. Because Canada holds a special position in the world today amongst the middle nations and the emerging new nations I think that spontaneous and unanimous approval of this declaration of human rights would have had a great effect on those nations of the world today.
Almost everyone who has taken part in the debate has indicated that he feels he would like to see all the provinces participate in this bill and that it would be more valuable if this result could be brought about by a constitutional amendment which would make it enforceable in all the provinces. But that is not possible at the present time. I feel that the opposition, knowing that this is not possible at the present time, have been wrong in trying to detract from this bill.
The great value of a bill of this nature is that provision is made to protect the rights which are declared to be ours. It is important that it should have been put out with unanimous approval and brought to the attention of the public in a very forceful way to encourage all the people of this country to join in and rejoice at the passing of this bill and to encourage the provincial governments to join with us and to enact the same sort of bill in their respective legislatures.
Mr. Speaker, I feel that the opposition are trying to detract in every way they can from this measure simply by delaying the possibility of accomplishing the end we want to accomplish. I find it particularly disturbing that they should do this, because the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson), who was a member of the government which was previously in office, knows very well that some of the things he asked for cannot possibly be accomplished. Therefore he could not have had any reason to suggest them other than to try and detract from the credit which is rightfully due to the Prime Minister for introducing this bill.
I do not know what kind of consideration he wanted to be given to the bill, but in his contribution to this debate he said, as reported on page 5650 of Hansard for July 1:
This is a bill which should be submitted to a committee where witnesses could be called and where the bill could be given the same kind of consideration which this subject was given in the past when committees were set up, one of which met on 20 occasions.
I do not know whether he wants it to be given the consideration it has been given
Human Rights
in the past inasmuch as it would go off to some committee somewhere and never come back again. Perhaps that is his hope, I do not know, but it seems to me to be the kind of consideration that he would like to give it. Again I say that he could only have one reason for wanting any such consideration as that, because he would like to detract from the credit which is so rightfully due the Prime Minister for introducing this bill.
There was a rather interesting editorial in the Ottawa Journal of Monday, July 4, not referring to this debate but stating in their opinion what parliament should do with this bill. It is quite a short article and I think it is of such importance that I should take this opportunity to bring it to the attenion of the house. It is entitled "That bill of rights" and it commences:
Little in life causes more trouble than a murderous tenacity for the unattainable perfect impeding the attainable good.
That would be one of the steps which the opposition seem to suggest we should be taking, that because we cannot have everything everybody wants at one time, we should do nothing. Of course, one can appreciate that philosophy when one realizes that the Liberal government was in office for 22 years and did nothing; presumably they were operating on that philosophy throughout their tenure of office. The editorial continues:
Consider what seems to be happening in the case of Mr. Diefenbaker's bill of rights.
No one can hold sensibly that it is a bad thing for the parliament of Canada to declare at this time in favour of human rights. But simply because our political structure in Canada makes it impossible at present to make that declaration a part of Canada's constitution, some people are saying that the declaration is worthless, that it shouldn't be made at all.
Why shouldn't it be made? Surely at this time, when freedom in so many areas is under siege, it is not a bad thing for the parliament of Canada to shout its faith in freedom.
It is true that this declaration, this writ, so to speak, will not run in the provinces. But if it is ever to be made a writ that will run in our provinces, become a part of the constitution that will be enforceable, what better way of making a start towards that end than to have parliament give the lead Mr. Diefenbaker wants it to give?
This declaration of human rights should be made -be made unanimously and resoundingly.
That bears out what I have already stated to the house, because I believe that had it been given that sort of support it would have had a great deal more effect in this country and I believe every member of the house knows it would have had that effect had it received that kind of support. It would have helped Canada's position in world affairs as well as helped bring about the very ends which the opposition say they would like to bring about.

Human Rights
If there were violent differences of opinion here with matters of principle involved which the opposition could not agree to then of course one would not expect them to give that kind of support. But that is not the case with this bill of rights. I do not think that anyone in this house has indicated in any way that he is opposed to this important bill. It is the age old argument of the opposition, of course, that when the government brings in a good bill they do not dare oppose it so the only thing they can do is to try to detract from it and to say that it does not go far enough or that it should go further, and about every kind of obstacle in its way to detract from it. I suggest that is what has been done in this particular debate.
One of the main objections has been that a constitutional amendment is required. The people of Canada sent us here to legislate. They did not send us down here to re-divide the powers as between the federal and provincial governments. They sent us down here to legislate in a field open to us, namely to legislate within the power of the federal government.
I would remind the house that those same electors who sent us here are also responsible for electing the members of provincial legislatures, and if they want provincial legislatures to enact a bill of rights it will be up to these same people to instruct them to do that. That is exactly the constitutional position in the country. That is what we are sent here for and that is what we are doing at the present time.
The Prime Minister has brought this to the attention of the country many times. Throughout his parliamentary career he has fought for a bill of rights and during the election campaign the people of Canada endorsed his proposal to introduce a bill of rights. Certainly I have had many letters on this subject since I have been a member supporting the Prime Minister's proposal to bring in this bill.
I want to say I am very proud to support a bill which is brought forward in the kind of language which we have in the present bill. We have had discourses on this from very learned counsel, but I am pleased to see that it is in such language that I as a layman and every other person in Canada simply by reading this bill can see clearly set out those rights which are ours. Those rights are set out in unequivocal terms and the bill makes provision for the court to protect those rights. It states quite clearly that parliament shall not be able to infringe upon those rights without repealing the act or stating expressly that it will abridge the freedoms contained in it.
[Mr. Browne (Vancouver-Kingsway) .1
The Leader of the Opposition made one or two other observations in connection with this matter and at one point asked, "Why should people pay more attention to this bill than to previous bills?" As reported on page 5663 of Hansard for July 4 he said:
Why should a future parliament be more impressed by and respectful of this bill than it would be of historic charters of our liberties such as the Magna Carta, the petition of right of 1627, the habeas corpus act of 1640 and the bill of rights of 1689-
I suggest there is no more reason why they should be any more bound by them, but I can only say that if they pay as much attention to this bill as they paid to those, then those of us in this house at the present time who have supported this bill will certainly have every reason to be proud of ourselves for having taken part in this historic occasion. At the same time, when the course of history runs along through the coming years we will see this document taking its place in Canadian history, as have so many of these other important declarations played their part in the history of other countries. When that time comes I say that those who have opposed this bill will certainly have no right to be proud of themselves.
Therefore it gives me the greatest pleasure to be able to support the Prime Minister and the government in bringing forward this very valuable document, one which I know in the years I have been a member of parliament I will always consider to be a great privilege to have supported.
(Translation):


Mr. Noel Dorion (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, the bill placed before us today on the initiative of the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) has so far inspired a high calibre debate, in the course of which we have heard a number of interesting suggestions.
While I would not be so presumptuous as to believe that my personal intervention can be of any great help, I should like to leave with the house the results of my modest observations.
The history of civilization shows that for a long time, the pursuit and definition of human rights were mainly matters for philosophical debate and moral dissertation. Leading thinkers did perceive however-generally in a confused way-that while man, due to his nature, had to serve society, it did not follow that he should be subordinated to society in all respects, nor that society should not serve man. Christ was really the first

Human Rights
to bring us the first charter of human freedoms, summarizing in these lapidary words which after two thousand years are still amazingly timely:
Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's.
Throughout the centuries, many battles have been waged over this principle of life. Man has never ceased to pursue the freedoms that enable him to express himself, and it may be said that for two centuries the search for and the defining of human rights have become one of the main concerns now of nations and of governments, and of both at the same time.
We learn from history that it is especially after uprisings, revolutions or social upheavals that attempts were made to define those rights in writings that were always proclaimed inalienable and permanent. Successive constitutions, in France, since 1789, have sprung from the rising of the people against the intolerance and abuse which it felt or thought it had suffered at the hands of the state authorities, or its rulers.
The first establishments which were to form New England and hold such a large place in the history of the English colonies in America, were the result of a similar feeling. For did they not originate in the landing at Plymouth Rock, on December 21, 1620? A historian eloquently remarked, and I quote:
The pilgrims who came to the New World seeking the right to pray according to their faith, brought with them neither warrant nor charter. But before they disembarked from the Mayflower, they signed the famous "pact" which contained the principles that were to rule life in their community.
Even today, Mr. Speaker, we cannot face without emotion the memory which is kept alive on the Reformation wall, in Geneva. We see, in that picture those God-fearing pilgrims, kneeling on the deck of their ship as they neared what was to be their land of freedom. Then, before separating, they sign the Mayflower pact which was to be the basis for the various subsequent establishments, that were, in a way, a prelude to the constitution of the great American democracy.
Canada, on its part, also enjoys a great heritage in this respect. Immediately after the defeat of 1760, the vanquished leaders of French Canada tried to regain its basic freedoms. The Ramezays and the De Vau-dreuils took great care, at the time of surrender, to demand as a vital need religious freedom and maintenance of our civil laws.
Article 4 of the Treaty of Paris, in 1763, was to be the first answer of the conqueror, and I quote:
79951-0-364
(Text):
His Britannick Majesty consents to grant to the inhabitants of Canada the freedom of the Catholic religion. Consequently, His Majesty will give the most effectual and precise orders so that his Roman Catholic subjects may solemnize their religion according to the rites of the Roman church in so far as the laws of Britain will allow.
(Translation):
That was an important amendment to British public law as it then existed, and I might recall incidentally, Mr. Speaker, that Canada was the chosen land where religious freedom was first recognized, even before it was recognized by the mother country for its own people.
Indeed, in 1763, as a result of the test act of 1673, no Catholic of the empire had a right to hold public office without renouncing the fundamental dogmas of his faith. The Canadian people were the first to be relieved by the act of Quebec of 1774.
Moreover, Mr. Speaker, when we look at that part of our history, we can say that Canada was the first country where for the first time since Henry VIII recognition was given to the rights and freedoms belonging not only to Catholics but to all religious denominations. Thus, this act of Quebec was followed in England by the Roman Catholic relief act of 1829, following the fights waged by O'Connell. This act of Quebec came some fifty years before the conquest of religious freedom in the United Kingdom. In Canada, this conquest went on when the Jews, then living in England in semi-freedom, were granted here, as early as 1832, a status recognizing their religious freedom. It was the same for Protestants and dissenters, until 1852 when during the period of union act, the first act was passed definitely and absolutely acknowledging freedom for all sects and religions then known in Canada.
That is the heritage we are still enjoying today, a rich and valuable heritage which enables us more than any other nation perhaps to rank among the first countries seeking to have recognized in specific, precise and definite terms, the fundamental freedoms that all men hope for and which allow fulfilment of their personality.
Canada could not show unconcern about this heritage when on December 10, 1948, after three years of discussions, of debates and planning, the general assembly of the United Nations passed a measure of 30 items covering a number of human rights of various nature, the recognition of which, in the opinion of the assembly itself, was the basis of world freedom, justice and peace.

Human Rights
That universal statement on human rights was soon to operate. Thus, all the texts of constitutions set up since, all basic legislation and laws of newly formed states, or of countries rising from their ruins, as well as the various agencies of the United Nations, international treaties and agreements, the judgments and views of international courts of justice and even of some national courts have been impregnated by that statement and are a proof of its deep influence on world opinion today.
Having signed that document, Canada could hardly ignore the moral obligation thus assumed. Therefore, the present Prime Minister submitted that serious issue to the House of Commons as early as in 1948.
During the 1950 session, the Senate set up a committee which was to investigate the facts and submit its conclusions. That report, which was published on June 27 of that year, recommended that human rightsbased on equality before the law and public order-
-be confirmed by a solemn statement.
Many times since the problem has been the subject matter of eloquent debate until the 1958 session, when the Prime Minister of Canada took the leadership in this field and gave it the form of a bill, which was then deliberately shelved to give Canadians time to consider it and to express their views. That bill is today before us.
And what, essentially, does it consist of?
In his treaty on constitutional law and political institutions the prominent columnist of Le Monde, Mr. Maurice Duverger, stated that:
The limitation of government action through the recognition of a citizen's political freedoms works on two levels.
On the one hand, freedoms serve to define an area that is closed to government activity, an area for private action, reserved to the individual; on the other hand, within the very area that is open to government activity, freedoms provide means of opposing the government, means of preventing the government from wielding too much power.
The text before us, largely based on the universal declaration of human rights, is clearly directed to this double purpose. Thus, after recalling man's right to life, liberty, security and the enjoyment of property, without discrimination as to race, national origin, colour, religion or sex, it expressly proclaims freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly and association. Then there are protective provisions against arbitrary detention or imprisonment, something which
[Mr. Dorion.l
recalls and reemphasizes the great British legal institutions which, since the conquest, have become an integral part of our common heritage.
Since its publication this bill has been taken apart and commented upon by many politicians, lawyers and sociologists. Some have regretted its formal inadequacy and the lack of any criminal penalties; others- and I think that is the purpose of the amendment now before us-feel that, instead of passing a mere federal law, we should proceed to amend the constitution so that each and every province would be subject to its provisions.
Any legislation, however important, must strictly take into account the structure of the legislating government. Canada is a federation. Our constitution provides for a distribution of powers and responsibilities as between the federal government and the provincial governments, both of which are sovereign in their particular field.
The result is that some sections of the declaration drafted by the United Nations cannot be incorporated into a federal legislation without constituting an infringement upon the legislative autonomy of the provinces. I think that, during the debate at United Nations, it was the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) himself who pointed out that danger.
A bill of rights that would begin by violating the constitution which Canadians have accepted, and which ensures the fulfillment of their personality, would appear as a bold stroke of striking inconsistency.
Would it be better to amend the constitution? Perhaps, but then the amending procedure would have to be provided by the constitution itself, or else accepted by all provinces. Now, no such procedure has been provided in the act of 1867, and most amendments to the act since were introduced exclusively by the federal government, without the active support of the provinces, even if, at times, there was prior consultation. In such a delicate matter, the amending procedure would barely disguise the abuse of power of which, in fact, the federal government would become guilty. What respect could we have for a text drafted, if not in formal illegality, at least in illegitimacy?
Others find the Prime Minister's project inadequate and, in some respects, laconic. Of course, clearly discernible is the desire not to impinge upon powers beyond the jurisdiction of the federal state. That, in my opinion, does not in the least detract from

its value; on the contrary, it is all to the credit of the Prime Minister, and he deserves our congratulations for it. The draft is couched in simple terms, that everybody can understand, and it avoids anything that could give rise to violent controversy.
As General Lafayette said in the French constituent assembly, the character of such a declaration consists in truth and precision: it must recite what everyone knows, what everyone wants. It must state only indisputable principles, only morally and legally indefeasible rights inherent to all systems, since the rights it purports to proclaim are natural rights that are vital to man and his development at all times and in all countries.
But what about the lack of penal sanction? Much could be said on that score, but my time is running out. Let me point out that this objection does not take into account the nature and true purpose of the document. In his Christmas message of 1940, His Holiness Pope Pius XII precisely urged nations to proclaim a universal declaration of rights and to transpose it into their own legislation; he defined the character of such a declaration and pointed out its ultimate purpose in those terms:
To calm the agitation and bitterness of all those who feel threatened or injured In their existence or deprived of the free exercise of their activity.
Published not just by philosophers or moralists, but by legislators and public administrators, such statements become in the hands of men, and by the sole power of their verity, instruments of protection and defence before the courts and public opinion. They help fight injustice and arbitrary decisions. Moreover, at the same time, they teach man the moral obligations that also involve the respect of another man's property. In a country such as this, where two races with different origins, cultures and beliefs live side by side, a bill of rights will help bring those races closer together, help shape public opinion, cause the great law of Christian charity to become deeply rooted in the soul of everyone and finally provide for French speaking Canadians and English speaking Canadians equal rights and freedoms in all and every part of our wide and beautiful country.
(Text):


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, we have all listened to the debates with a great deal of interest and I believe we have all learned something from what has been said. It would appear that a bill of rights means many things to many people, and not the same thing to each individual.
79951-0-364J
Human Rights
It seems to me that we are putting a great deal of faith in a bill that is as simply written and as fundamental as this bill of rights appears to be. It will be true, as the hon. member for Russell (Mr. Tardif) said a few moments ago, that the lawyers will interpret it as they see fit, and many applications will come from a very humble beginning.
For many years the Canadian people have been told that they need a bill of rights and that a bill of rights is a good thing. I wonder how much we really needed a written bill of rights? I wonder whether this bill of rights which outlines certain liberties of the Canadian people will actually limit them by enumerating them? Will it not to some extent limit federal jurisdiction, and particularly the jurisdiction of the courts which have served well the English people, Canadians and others who have taken their cases before them, and finally in many instances to the highest courts of the land?
I keep thinking that the Roncarelli case was a very good example. While we may argue that it cost a lot of money to carry it through the courts-it took seven years-I think it is generally agreed that the Canadian people achieved from the courts in the end a sense of fair play and an indication of what justice was.
I am inclined to believe that quite often when we pass a statute, when we introduce a bill that limits by its scope many things by enumerating exactly what it will protect, we put ourselves in this position. Many of the things that are not mentioned, many of the things that are not considered to be rights today will be debated and will become court cases in the future because provincial governments may well decide that they are within their jurisdiction because those matters which come within the jurisdiction of the federal government are enumerated in this legislation.
I listened very carefully to the arguments put forward on behalf of a bill of rights that would be suitable to teach to the growing generation and would give them probably as great a sense of nationalism as does the constitution of the United States, the story of George Washington and the cherry tree and so forth. I believe there is some merit in this suggestion. I would think the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) should give consideration to including a preamble that could be brought to the attention of our children, something which would give them a sense of Canadian-ism and of ownership of those rights that we are now enumerating. I am sure that

Human Rights
many of our children if they were given the bill of rights we have before us would find very little in it that is not in other legal documents.
The constitutional aspects of whether we should have a bill of rights in our constitution or whether it should be an act of parliament which could be changed by subsequent governments is worthy of a great deal of consideration. We should feel in Canada that no matter what province one comes from he has equal rights with the people in other provinces. Obviously this can only be accomplished by putting it in a constitution which cannot be changed at the whim of either a federal government or any particular provincial government. I do not think we need to enumerate the cases that in recent years have shown the need for those rights to be granted in provincial fields. I refer to the right of assembly which is given to the unions, which can be taken away in certain provinces and yet is generally accepted and is on the statute books of the federal government. This right is given to all citizens under federal jurisdiction. In this field we have rights and liberties of the Canadian people that we have come to accept. Therefore, I think there is something to be said for putting this into stronger form than a simple act of the House of Commons.
On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, there is something to be said for having a bill in this form. It would appear to me that the bill of rights that the Canadian people will get will depend entirely on the attitude of the people themselves and their interpretation of it. I would suggest that as we grow up in this country and throughout the world and as we enlarge our concept of what liberty is we shall before too long want to write into a bill of rights the right of freedom from want. We shall be interested in adding economic implications to it so that no people in this country will be in want of food and the basic necessities of life.
It will not be too long before we shall want to put in a bill of rights certain rights with regard to our health structure so that Canadians at all times any place in Canada will be entitled to reasonable and extensive care as they may need it.
If the bill of rights is in such a form that it can be maintained by subsequent governments we shall be surprised in 25 or 50 years at just how many things the Canadian people have assumed for themselves as fundamental rights, and they will not be as basic as the rights outlined in this particular bill. In my opinion this means that the bill of rights will mean only what the government of the day wants it to mean. If we have governments such as we have had in various provinces of

Canada which do not believe in freedom of the press, then there will be no freedom of the press. If we have governments which do not believe in the right of assembly, then there will be no right of assembly, and we have seen this happen in some of the provinces. If we believe in freedom of religion, then we will have freedom of religion with this bill or with the interpretation that we get from our courts. We have seen in provinces where they do not believe in freedom of religion that we did not have that right and this bill of rights will not make any difference to them.
We are going to have a federal-provincial conference on July 25. I would suggest that the Prime Minister hold off his bill of rights until that time and then present it to the premiers of the provinces. I would be surprised if there are not a number of the provinces which, without any preliminary work being done, without any discussions, will agree to accept this bill of rights and recommend that it be strengthened and that other liberties be put into it at the same time. I am also quite sure there are a number of provinces in this country which will not agree to accept the bill of rights and make it a constitutional amendment. We have an obligation to those who will not accept a bill of rights at this time to continually keep bringing this matter to the premiers of those provinces and to the people of those provinces until we have educated them at least into accepting what I would consider to be a very basic set of principles.
I believe that a bill of rights will be only as good as the government that is administering it. I have no doubts about this government and certainly about the Prime Minister of this country administering a bill of rights so that it will mean anything to a great number of people. If a bill of rights is going to mean anything it is going to have to take into consideration two parties. It is going to have to mean something to the individual and it is going to have to mean something to the crown at least. Those two parties are going to be involved every time the question of the bill of rights comes before the people.
The individual is going to be concerned and the crown must be concerned. Yet in this bill we do not have a very simple clause saying that the crown will be bound by this legislation as well as the individual. We do not have such a clause in this bill although it is found in most of our acts. It is a clause that is necessary at all times in order to bind the crown. It is to be found in the Interpretation Act. Such a clause could easily have been added at the end of this bill in order to make the crown also a responsible

party with respect to any action taking place under the bill of rights. The bill provides freedom for the individual but does not place any restraint on the other party, the crown. I suggest that at least with respect to federal matters the crown must be a party to the bill.
I rose on a point of order the other day, Mr. Speaker, and tried to indicate that already at this session we have passed at least one bill containing clauses which eliminate the benefits to be gained from the bill of rights. The Feeds Act is very simple legislation, but in 11 instances in that act we have eliminated rights that the Canadian people have come to assume are theirs. We have eliminated security of property through the right to search without a warrant. We have eliminated protection against self-incrimination. We have removed the protection against forced confessions. Excessive fines are provided which involve cruel and inhuman punishment. We have provided in this bill for arbitrary detention affecting the liberty of the person. We have eliminated the right to interference by counsel. We have eliminated the right not to be deprived of the enjoyment of property without due process of law. The right to a fair hearing has been abrogated. The right of the accused to confront crown witnesses and cross-examine has been eliminated. The right of the accused to stand trial where the offence occurs has been eliminated.
This was all done in one simple bill we passed this year. I make no apology for not having risen and saying something about the matter at that time. Frankly I did not know anything about it. This is an argument that can only be developed by lawyers, and as it was pointed out to me I am quite happy to point out the effect of that legislation. I have read the arguments and have studied the bill and out of the eleven instances that legal counsel have put forward I can find seven or eight myself and I am only a common, ordinary person.
Nobody questions the legal ability of the Prime Minister. He controls the government. We do not have control by a 25-man cabinet but rather government by an individual. It is his government and it will rise and fall with him. In my opinion he has the capabilities necessary to decide these matters. I will feel quite secure about his bill of rights and will be happy to say I have been wrong if I find that in the next week or two he withdraws the Feeds Act or eliminates those provisions of that act to which I have referred.
I have used the Feeds Act as an example not because it is the worst one but because
Human Rights
it was passed at this session and therefore fits my argument. There are other acts of the same kind. Take, for example, the Fisheries Act. Under that act an inspector can be a political appointee. As a political appointee he can seize a boat because he has reason to believe that something is not cricket with respect to the operation of the boat. He can hold the boat and then turn it back to the fisherman and say, "Thank you, I did not have any grounds; there is your boat and you can do what you like with it." The fisherman has no redress. The inspectors are protected under the act. All I suggest is that if the bill of rights means as much as some of the backbenchers seem to think it means then I am sure the government will immediately withdraw all legislation containing arbitrary powers eliminating the right to counsel and the right to protection against having to make confessions that may incriminate.
When these powers are eliminated I will believe that the Prime Minister is sincere in bringing forward a bill of rights, a bill that does not affect all the Canadian people but only those who are affected by acts passed under the jurisdiction of the federal parliament. In my opinion this measure will in no way interfere with the rights of the provincial governments.
I could go on and mention some of the things that I do not like that are happening in the immigration department, the fact that the mounted police have made raids in the middle of the night and assaulted men and women and this on the Indians that we keep on reservations we have set apart for them. I could point out these things but I do not think it would do any good because they are things that have happened in the past and we do not want to say anything about them. But I would suggest that if the members of the government are sincere in their belief, and I think they are, they have an obligation to start immediately to check all legislation we have passed in the last three or four years at least and to see that our legislation will give the people the rights we want them to have and are promising them in the bill of rights.
When that is done then in my opinion we in Canada will be able to write for ourselves a preamble to the bill of rights in concise and flowery language, even as flowery as the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) would like it to be, which will mean something to our school children. We can dress up the bill of rights so that every school child can learn about these rights and will feel proud of being a Canadian. They will know they have those rights we now have

Human Rights
through British law. As it is now, when we go to court one lawyer will get up and say that we have these rights and another lawyer will get up and say we have not. Then you look in your pocket and if you have enough money you hire the best lawyer. He says you have them and you win the case and you get off.
I am told that the Roncarelli case was before the courts for seven years and in many instances the justice handed out in that case was a disgrace to the Canadian people. We all agree that a fair and just decision was rendered when the case finally went to the Supreme Court of Canada. But such a result can only be achieved by the rich and will not accrue to the poor. The things that were spoken about this afternoon in such a flowery way were not given to the rich in England or the United States. They were given in the main to the poor people, to the people who could not afford to fight for themselves. Most of those rights were granted not after a revolution or an upset in the country but because of decisions by people like our supreme court judges who sat back in their little ivory towers and decided that this was right and that it should be given to the people.
We want to have a bill of rights in Canada. I have wanted a bill of rights for a long time. I agree with those who have said that they want the bill of rights to be simple so that Canadians can understand it. This bill of rights is simple and it can be a good bill of rights. It can be as good a bill of rights as the government that is going to administer it wishes to make it but if the government will not take action to eliminate those things that are provided to the contrary by other legislation of the federal government then I do not think the bill of rights will be worth the paper it is written on.
I think that in the next few months the Canadian people are going to be watching to see what happens with respect to the legislation with which they come in contact. The little fisherman who has some gear in a boat is going to be interested if his boat is seized by an inspector and no charge is laid and there is no right to prosecute the inspector. The feed mill owner will be interested when he calls in his lawyer and finds that the lawyer not only cannot have a privileged communication with his client but becomes a second party who can be questioned and has to give evidence under penalty of a fine himself.
If the little people across the country who are affected by the acts of the federal government find that these acts have been liberalized and find that what the Prime Minister said about the bill of rights was

not idle talk but was talk that was going to apply to them, then they will remember John Diefenbaker and his bill of rights for a long time. But if they continually find that those acts are abused and that the bill of rights is being invoked against other federal acts, they are going to question whether he was honest in his interpretation of applying this to all the Canadian people.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, before the vote on the amendment is taken I think it is desirable that I should explain the position we will take with regard to it. The amendment reads as follows:
That this bill be not now read a second time, but be it resolved that this house is of the opinion that the provinces should be consulted in order to ascertain whether agreement can be reached on the terms of a constitutional amendment to guarantee human rights and fundamental freedoms.
So far as the amendment deals with the desirability of consultation with the provinces, we on this side of the house have advocated that consultation during this debate and indeed on various occasions when we were dealing with this subject. We therefore naturally support the idea of consultation with the provinces so that out of that consultation there may develop in one form or another, with provincial agreement-because that is the only way in which it can be done-a bill of rights which will cover all Canadians and all subjects whether they are under provincial jurisdiction and federal jurisdiction.
This afternoon the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Walker) in his intervention in this debate stated that the previous government during its years of office had done nothing to promote consultation with the provinces in these matters. I would remind him that he himself mentioned the constitutional conference of 1950 which was at least an effort to bring about agreement with the provinces so that when action had to be taken in matters of this kind, which required a constitutional amendment before that action could cover the whole of the country, arrangements could be made for that to be done by some amending procedure in our own country.
The minister talked about the abortive nature of that conference. May I say this, Mr. Speaker. That conference represented at least an effort to make progress in this direction. While it did not accomplish everything the government of that day had in mind, that conference accomplished this result. It made possible the amendment of the Canadian constitution by Canadian action, without reference to any other outside jurisdiction, in respect of all those matters under federal jurisdiction. That achievement represented progress. Because of the action taken at that

time in 1950 this government today, if it had so desired, could have introduced this bill in the form of a constitutional amendment. As has been pointed out by the Prime Minister and others, this bill deals only with matters under the jurisdiction of the federal parliament. Hence because of the action which was taken in 1950 the government could have made this bill, as far as its contents are concerned, a matter for constitutional amendment by action of this parliament and not action of any other parliament at any time.
The Prime Minister has said that was not done because it was not really important to have it done in that way because a constitutional amendment of that kind can be altered in the same way in which it can be made, namely by action of this parliament. But as I pointed out on Monday, that surely is a strange argument and one which depreciates the importance of having something in our constitution. If the principle of this bill is so important as it has been stated to be by so many hon. members on the other side who have spoken; if it is indeed a landmark in our history; if it is indeed a Canadian Magna Carta, might it not have been wise to have brought this matter before this house in the form of a constitutional amendment covering federal matters alone so that it at least would have the sanctity of enshrinement in our constitution? That was not done but it could have been done because of the action taken in 1950.
This amendment goes beyond that point. This amendment deals with consultation in order to ascertain whether we can have the kind of bill of rights or bills of rights, if we need more than one, which would cover all subjects under all the jurisdictions and therefore cover all Canadians. As I have said, we of course support this idea of consultation. But what has the present government-which will be faced with this amendment as we are faced with it-done with regard to bringing about this kind of consultation?
The Prime Minister and others have pointed out that it is idle to talk about consultation with a view to bringing about a wider bill of rights because it is obvious that such consultation will lead to nothing but delay. Our quarrel with the government on this matter is that no effort of any kind has been made in nearly three years by the government to find out whether this pessimistic prediction is in fact the case. It is quite true that if in the future as little effort is made to bring about this kind of consultation with the provinces as has been made in the last two and a half years this amendment would indeed result in indefinite delay for any bill
Human Rights
of rights of any kind. The record of the past shows that we are not likely to have, unless that record is changed, the kind of consultation which is needed and which might, despite the pessimistic predictions made, result in agreement.
It has been pointed out by more than one speaker on this side of the house that there are already two provincial bills of rights. The new premier of the province of Quebec who has just been installed in office has already declared that he is in favour of a provincial bill of rights. Has any province come out against the idea of a bill of rights or a declaration of rights or a federal bill of rights, with the same kind of bill introduced in the provinces? Has any province come out against that in principle in the last two and a half years? Has any province discouraged initiative by the federal government which might have brought that about by now? Not to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker. Nevertheless the government has done nothing about it at all except to say that consultation is idle and delaying, that nothing can be expected from it and therefore they will bring this bill of rights forward as an ordinary bill of rights, not even as a constitutional measure covering federal matters alone. Hence that part of the amendment dealing with the consultation side of the question does not present the opposition with any difficulty.
But, Mr. Speaker, the real significance of this amendment, of course, lies in the first line:
That this bill be not now read a second time,-
That phraseology, makes the amendment a purely negative one. Not only is it negative in that sense technically but it rejects the principle embodied in this bill. The expression "that this bill be not now read the second time" would be killing the bill on second reading when we are dealing with the principle of the bill.
Mr. Speaker, we on this side have already said we would support the principle of this bill, but we wish that principle to be implemented more effectively. Having taken that position, how could we then vote for an amendment the effect of which is to kill the bill and negative the principle of the bill? What we want to see done, now that this bill has been introduced, even in the form in which it has been introduced, inadequate though it may be for the purposes we all hope to achieve, is to see the bill passed in second reading and sent to a committee.
We would have liked to have seen the promise made by the Prime Minister (Mr. HOUSE OF COMMONS
Human Rights
Diefenbaker) of this country to the bar association at its annual convention in Vancouver last September carried out, the promise by which a bill of rights "in the early days of next session", that is, the present session, would have been sent to a joint committee of the House of Commons and the Senate at which evidence could have been heard from those interested in giving such evidence, including the bar association itself.
As I pointed out the other day, that specific commitment given with definite assurance by the Prime Minister resulted in the bar association passing in one of its committees a resolution which said that it would be possible to discuss this matter in this joint parliamentary committee and therefore they would reserve their opinion until they had the chance to appear before it. That cannot be done as proposed. Perhaps we are not yet at the end of the session but we are certainly not in the early days of it. All we can do now is to get this bill as soon as we can to a committee, perhaps even at this stage- I do not know what the intentions of the government are-to a joint committee. But at least we can get a committee set up and can summon to the committee witnesses, organizations, individuals and experts. Some of the witnesses and some of the organizations have been waiting for two years to appear before such a committee.
If because this is the middle of July it is not going to be possible to get all the witnesses before the committee demanded by the seriousness of the subject, that will not be our responsibility. But we will do our best to make this committee work. We will do our best to help secure witnesses before this committee. We have already suggested in this debate certain concrete changes which can be made, we think with advantage, to this bill. We will have an opportunity, I hope, to bring these changes to the attention of the committee.
Incidentally in the course of this discussion some very thoughtful speeches have been made on all sides of the house, but we have not heard very much from the government side about the proposals we on this side have made in the hope that they would improve the bill and make it a better bill when it comes out of committee, back to this house during this session later in the summer; and when the house in committee of the whole will have a chance to go over the work of the committee, examine the changes which have been made, and perhaps pass a bill before the session is over which will really implement in an effective and impressive way the purposes which we all have in mind when we discuss human rights and fundamental freedoms.

We cannot do any of that if this amendment carries, because if it carries it kills the bill. That is the purpose of the amendment.


Harold Edward Winch: Not at all.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Surely there is no doubt about that, because this is an amendment designed to negative this bill. It says in terms "that this bill be not now read the second time". There can be nothing clearer than that.
For that reason, Mr. Speaker, we regret that we will not be able to support the amendment.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, it was not my intention to speak this evening but in light of the interpretation which has been placed on our amendment by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) I am impelled to speak.
The Leader of the Opposition began by making a great point, with which I agree, that there should have been consultation with the provinces. And he was very correct when he said that in the last two and a half years no province has gone on record as opposing a federal bill of rights or refusing to consult with the federal government on this question.
I think the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) has made a great mistake in not canvassing the possibility of agreement with the provinces to place in the Canadian constitution a bill of rights. But I hoped, Mr. Speaker, with this clear amendment before the house tonight that we would have the unanimous and enthusiastic support of the official opposition. The official opposition have said: "We like the amendment; we like the ideas in the amendment; we think the government should be doing what the amendment calls on the government to do, but we will not vote for the amendment."
Mr. Speaker, that is reminiscent of attitudes of the official opposition on other occasions. They say they want to do a certain thing, but when an opportunity is given to them to stand up and be counted in this house they shy away from it. How can they expect to gain the confidence of the Canadian public-


Paul Joseph James Martin: We are gaining it.


Hazen Robert Argue: We know there is something of a tradition in this country that many people vote one way in a provincial election and very often vote another way in a federal election. Apparently the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) is attempting to claim that the Liberal party is such a monolithic party that what happens in a given province is bound to happen in the federal field.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Look at the Gallup poll.


Hazen Robert Argue: "Look at the Gallup poll" says the hon. member.


Mr. Speaker:: Order: The right to vote is not one of the fundamental freedoms involved here.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, the attitude of the official opposition with regard to the amendment of the C.C.F. is exactly the same with regard to the Gallup poll. When it is in favour of the government they say it does not mean a thing, that it is cooked, that you cannot depend on it. They say "Look what happened in the United States". When it is on their side they say "Well, look at the Gallup poll".
The Leader of the Opposition complained that this bill should have been brought in at an early date and that it should have had thorough consideration throughout the length of this session. Now he says that it should be rushed off to the committee. If the passage of this amendment meant that the discussion of this bill was ending for this session, and if the passage of this amendment meant that the government would carry out the expressed wishes of parliament as contained in this motion and would bring in a bill of rights after having consulted the provinces, then I hope it passes this house, because I feel that consultation with the provinces and any possibility of getting an amendment into the constitution is superior to this type of bill.
In that I have the full support of the Liberal party. One would expect that they would welcome this amendment and that they would be supporting the leadership which our party has given to the opposition at this time. The Leader of the Opposition says that if it is passed the amendment will kill the bill. I take issue with him on that score. The amendment does not say anything of the kind. It says that the bill be not now read a second time, and I emphasize the word "now". If the house is prepared to adopt the motion as amended when I sit down around ten o'clock tonight-


An hon. Member:: Make it soon.


Hazen Robert Argue: You see that is the democratic attitude of the members opposite. Ten Tory speakers in a row, and they say that is democracy in action. To an opposition speaker, make it short, they say. Let us have the vote quickly. However, if the vote should come soon, and if by some weird fluke this amendment is passed; if the government's majority collapses, and if the whips are hauled off, as I would like them to be, and if we have a free vote, it would merely mean that the house had said that this bill should not now be read a second time. Then we would pass on to the next order of business-
79951-0-365
Human Rights


An hon. Member:: What is that?


Hazen Robert Argue: -and the second reading of the bill could be moved later tonight, if that were desired, or else the bill could be moved tomorrow on second reading, and we could continue where we left off.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Oh.


Hazen Robert Argue: The Leader of the Opposition can say "Oh", but I still contend that this amendment does not kill the bill. Its passage does not remove the bill from the order paper. It is merely an abstract expression of the views of this house. Perhaps the Liberal party is afraid that the motion as amended might pass. I wonder if that is really a logical assumption to make? According to the latest tally I have, there are 206 supporters of the government in this house, 48 supporters of the Leader of the Opposition and eight members of the C.C.F. group. Does the Leader of the Opposition really think that the government in opposing this amendment, as it has indicated it intends to do, is likely to allow it to pass? Of course they will not allow it to pass. So I think that on any grounds the arguments of the Leader of the Opposition are very much in error. However, if this amendment should pass, and the government were then to consider it as a want of confidence motion and head to the electorate, would the Leader of the Opposition consider that a calamity?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No.


Hazen Robert Argue: We have put forward this amendment in the hope it will receive support and in the hope it will pass and because we feel that parliament should lend its support to the proposition that the provinces should be consulted. I feel it is the duty of members in the opposition parties to put their views forward strongly, and to put their views forward by way of motions or by way of amendments, and then speak and vote in favour of those amendments. In my opinion every single vote cast in favour of this proposition is a vote in favour of a stronger bill of rights and is not, as the Leader of the Opposition has stated it to be, a vote which is negative to the proposition that there should be a bill of rights.
I can only say we are disappointed that we are not receiving the support of the Liberal opposition. We think that all the arguments which have been put forward by the Liberal party point to one conclusion. Those of us who speak from this group would be very greatly strengthened by a consistent approach by the Liberal party, by their voting in the house the way they have been speaking for the last three days.

Human Rights


John George Diefenbaker: I do not want to spoil this beautiful relationship which has developed between the two opposition parties. On the one hand, the members of the C.C.F. claim that they want a bill of rights and on the other hand by the amendment in question which they have moved they are adopting a means of assuring that there will not be a bill of rights.
Every authority contained in Beauchesne indicates that the manner in which to defeat any resolution or motion is to move, in the words of this particular amendment, that this bill be not now read a second time, with some alternative offered. The interesting situation in which the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) finds himself has been revealed in his own transparent words. He says: We have moved this amendment; we realize it will not be carried, and therefore we can take the stand of opposing the motion for a bill of rights at this time. These are his words.


Hazen Robert Argue: I rise on a question of privilege.


John George Diefenbaker: These are his words.


Mr. Speaker:: What is the question of privilege?


Hazen Robert Argue: The Prime Minister has said we have moved this amendment so that we can vote against the motion for a bill of rights. I never made any such statement, and I think time will show the way in which the C.C.F. will vote on this matter.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is not raising a question of privilege. It is a matter of argument.


John George Diefenbaker: I have simply placed a proper interpretation on the action taken by the C.C.F. party in this regard.


Hazen Robert Argue: Do not misquote me.


John George Diefenbaker: They know the rules of parliament; they know that this type of amendment is designed to defeat the motion which is before the house.


Hazen Robert Argue: That is not true.


John George Diefenbaker: Those are the rules. The hon. gentleman is invariably quoting the rules, and every suggestion of an amendment as a means of defeating a motion provides that the bill be not now read a second time but that some other course be followed. This is the transparent tactic which is being used in this case by the hon. gentleman and those associated with him. He has pointed out that with 206 members supporting the government there is, after all, no danger of this amendment passing, indicating exactly what I mentioned a few moments ago, that this is a transparent tactic designed to afford an

opportunity to divide the house while at the same time continuing the pretence that the party in question supports a bill of rights.


Hazen Robert Argue: Nonsense.


John George Diefenbaker: I do not want to discourage this beautiful relationship between the members of the opposition. The Liberal party has throughout the years indicated, by its refusal to act on any suggestion that there should be a bill of rights, that it did not want a bill of rights. Indeed I can give the house quotations in support of that contention, and I intend to do so when I come to close the debate. The attitude shown a moment ago by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) is certainly worthy of commendation on our part, since it indicates that the educative process that we carried out during the years while endeavouring to obtain a bill of rights has now enabled us to command the support of the right hon. gentleman and his followers.
Mr. Speaker, this is a day I have looked forward to. I am glad if we are going to receive the support of the official opposition on the bill of rights which through the years I have advocated and others have advocated and I am sorry that the C.C.F. is going to place itself in the position of endeavouring to defeat something to which they have through the years, through their various leaders, given support.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, so that the matter may be clear, may I ask the Prime Minister if there is any doubt that he will propose after second reading that this bill be sent to a committee for thorough study?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I intended to deal with that generally when I concluded the debate. I undertook that the matter would be sent to a committee. If the house agrees it will be sent to a committee as was always the intention and has been made clear over and over again.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Early in the session?


Mr. Grant Campbell (Stormont):: Mr. Speaker, when this matter came up last year I had the pleasure of attending a lecture delivered by Professor A. M. Lower at the University of Ottawa. As everyone knows, Professor Lower is the very distinguished author of a history text book which is standard in most universities entitled, "Colony to Nation", and as most people know he is no great or abiding friend of the government or of the party to which I belong. His book "Colony to Nation" is written in a very racy and ingratiating style. However, one should not take it too seriously because it presents the Liberal or authorized version of Canadian history. I think it is very fortunate that we have people like Professor Creighton who can set the record straight. However, I must admit that Mr. Lower could not restrain a sneaking respect for the founder of the Conservative party and original prime minister of Canada, the late Sir John A. Macdonald.
But I was very gratified and pleased at the support that Mr. Lower gave for a bill of rights. I was fortunate enough to have the pleasure of meeting him afterwards and he was kind enough to give me the verbatim notes of his speech. There are several passages I should like to quote directly from his speech because I think they are extremely material to the discussion tonight. I quote from Professor Lower's remarks:
I agree wholeheartedly that the present administration is sincerely anxious to increase the guarantees of Canadian freedom. The problem is too big to be allowed to become merely a matter of ordinary party bickering. Those who try to make it merely a party matter will do their country no service.
He went on to say:
I recognize the weaknesses of a simple statute instead of a constitutional amendment, but I recognize the impossibility of getting this latter at the present time. A half loaf is better than no bread. If I were an M.P., I would call for drastic

Human Rights
revision and strengthening of that part of the bill dealing with the War Measures Act, and would cheerfully vote for the rest of it.
Professor Lower stated that if he were a member of parliament he would call for a strengthening of the war measures provisions and would cheerfully vote for the rest of the bill. He stated further:
I hope all Canadians will have gumption enough to see in the gesture of the present government concern for their liberties.
He stated something else that is very material and which I should like to put on the record because he expresses it in a most succinct and intelligent manner. He said:
Our bill of rights will touch on the subject of civil liberties, not on civil rights at all, and, as such, I suspect it will affect the whole country. It will be a great statement of principle. It will be comparable to the American declaration of independence.
I quote further:
If you want another parallel for the statement of principles, I can think of a very pertinent one which nobody here will repudiate, that is to say, the innumerable statements of principles which we find stated in the holy writ. I suppose there are very few people who have not consciously or unconsciously, at some time or other, violated the precepts that are laid down for us in the scriptures but somehow, these precepts have a way of bringing us back to them. We take the simple case of the ten commandments. One of them states: "Thou shalt not steal", yet there is a great deal of theft in the world. Nevertheless, we come back to the principle and it has been so strong and so powerful a principle that it is upheld by the secular law of the land. My point is that, if you enunciate a great principle, which is intrinsically sound, sooner or later, your law will be shaped accordingly; and sooner or later he will begin to think accordingly too.
I could not agree more with this direct verbatim quotation from Professor Lower. I am glad to say that there is one instance in which I can thoroughly agree with him.
For many years prior to the last two great wars many people had the idea of the inevitable march of freedom. It used to be taken for granted or it was assumed that by some natural law one nation after another would introduce some form of representative government modelled on the mother of parliaments and that in due course freedom would become universal. To me this is just another of those liberal illusions-that is liberal with a small "1"-that was initiated by the French revolution. It is in the same category as is this faith in the inevitable progress and the ultimate perfectability of man. These two illusions are one thing that Liberals, communists, socialists and so on have in common, namely this naive faith which is founded on a misconception of human nature.
Conservatives, basing their feeling on an older and more orthodox Christian tradition,

realize that human egotism must be restrained by good laws and that human altruism will always be bolstered by sound institutions. They also realize that there is no guarantee of any inevitable progress. In human history we go forward and we go backward. There is always in human history the possibility of human creativity and destructivity.
Unfortunately, as I have stated, this optimism that freedom was inevitable has not been justified by events. Our democratic form of government has gone entirely out of fashion and has been replaced in many countries by the rule of a dictator or a tyrannical clique. Even in Canada our rulers seem to have been attracted by the illusion of the efficiency of government wartime controls and to have become impatient with the relatively slower and more pedestrian processes of democracy. It has been the evidence of this which has led thinking men to advocate clear-cut legislation to guarantee personal liberty in place of our vague traditions.
It is evident that this bill should have been introduced by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) because his efforts to secure such legislation go back for a long time. He raised the matter in 1942. In 1947 he made a speech in parliament which aroused great interest in the subject of a bill of rights not only in Canada but in the United Nations. On many occasions between 1947 and the defeat of the previous government the Prime Minister raised his voice to urge on an unsympathetic house the passing of just such a bill as that which is before us. As Prime Minister he has drafted the bill of rights; and in order that it should receive the fullest consideration and study he introduced the bill and had it given first reading last September and then let it stand over until this present session.
In 1945, when the charter of the United Nations was drawn up in San Francisco, proposals were already being made that an international bill of human rights should be drafted. This first international declaration of human rights was adopted without a single dissenting vote. It consisted of 26 articles and covered a very wide range of personal, civic, political, economic and other types of rights.
Those 26 articles did not have the force of binding rules of law either in international relations or in the domestic law of any of the states which approved them but they represent the aspirations of the common men and women of this age. They are a statement of what ought to be. They represent a challenge and a goal, and in most parts of the world that goal is tragically far removed from actual conditions. It is the old story of

the tragic disparity between our aims and our achievements. However, the United Nations declaration of human rights is an inspiration to us as well as to others and it forms the background to the fight which the Prime Minister has been waging for a bill of rights in Canada.
Since no one in Canada would ever admit that he was opposed to freedom, it seems surprising that opposition members, or some of them, would have in the past rejected the Prime Minister's arguments. However, a bill of rights meant a curb to the power of the previous government which, incidentally, it was by no means ready to accept. Among the members who opposed this suggestion of a bill of rights on numerous occasions was the late Mr. Garson, the former minister of justice. I quote from his speech in the House of Commons where on one occasion he stated 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 ... It is this British principle which the hon. member for Prince Albert proposes to abridge by attaching constitutional limitations to it in the manner of the bill of rights in the United States constitution.
Mr. Garson, of course, was obviously referring to the fact that the parliament of Britain is completely unfettered. It has the power to confiscate your home, to imprison you or to do anything. In fact, it is a cliche in law circles that the only thing the British parliament cannot do is to change a man into a woman. In contrast, under the United States system of government we know that the first ten sections of the United States constitution provide a bill of rights to which all legislation must be subject.
It should be remembered, of course, that this absolute and unfettered power possessed by the British parliament is not due to any deliberate planning but is due to the fact that parliament has gradually acquired the power originally possessed by despotic kings who knew no bounds to their power save the limits placed on tyranny by the threat of rebellion. This accident of history has left the British parliament with a constitution resting on usage which knows no restraint on its legislative power. Because the tyrannical government of Charles I and James II provoked rebellions which led to the termination of their kingly jobs and in one instance the termination of life we are prone to think of government tyranny as related only to monarchy. I am sure that those who have
Human Rights
the responsibility of directing affairs at Westminster do not make that mistake. They know that stubborn Englishmen who have grown up with traditions of liberty and independence can be pushed only so far and that they will accept despotic regimentation no more readily from some bureaucrat than they will from a monarch and they have learned not to risk such an explosion.
But our population is like that of the United States. It is composed of many elements. Our history in some respects is similar to that of the United States. We have this tradition of violence. We are not a homogeneous people who have lived in isolation for a thousand years so that we should develop our own way of life and our own traditions.
Many people in both the United States and Canada came from countries where the common man was not encouraged to talk back to officials and where there was no traditional liberty. Even those of Anglo-Saxon origin have lost that stubborn, rebellious spirit. Let me say to the English "Be not proud". Let them know that this Magna Carta they boast of was actually promises extracted by French knights and French barons from a French king. Let them realize also that the language of the English courts for 300 years after Magna Carta was the language of France. Let them also realize before they become too proud that the greatest judge who ever adorned the English bench was not an Englishman but a Scotsman, Lord Mansfield.
As for the previous government which was in office, men like Mr. Howe and Mr. Garson, who shared with other members of the cabinet the odium of stifling the discussion of the pipe line contract, also appeared eager to abuse their great powers. Mr. Howe, Mr. Garson and the rest have had their day and will never play the tyrant again. But there are those in power who suffer from illusions of grandeur and there are many who think that some legal restraints should be applied to keep anybody who in future endeavours to emulate them within bounds.
Many well-intentioned people who support the concept of a bill of rights are of the opinion that there should be a constitutional amendment. I am not too sure-and I throw this out because I certainly make no pretensions to being a constitutional lawyer-that this bill of rights as it stands would not apply directly to the provinces. The property and civil rights reserved under section 92 of the British North America Act to the provinces refer to quite a different thing. That is property and civil rights. It is a translation from an old French legal term, "proprietes et droits civils". That was a well known phrase long before the English conquest. It

Human Rights
was put in that section by Sir George Etienne Cartier, and of course was designed to safeguard the customary laws of the province of Quebec; for example, the family law, the rights to inheritance and that sort of thing. It had nothing whatever to do with civil liberties, which is a different matter and which could more correctly be called public laws.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) has decided not to seek such an amendment because of the question of delay. He obviously arrived at the same conclusion as Professor Lower. That half a loaf of bread is better than none. He stated on one occasion:
In so far as constitutional amendment would be concerned, the experience of 80 years indicates very clearly that the provinces, jealous of their jurisdiction, would not support a constitutional amendment applicable to themselves.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I wonder if the hon. member would agree with me that the vote which has been taken has pretty well disposed of the question of a constitutional amendment and that we might confine ourselves now to the bill before the house.


Grant Campbell: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
In closing, there are others who might say that this is just a simple statute. If it can be passed by a government it can be repealed by a government. This is literally true, but can you imagine the outcry which would be created if any government presumed to do such a thing? What government would dare repeal a statute which guaranteed our civil liberties? Anyone who considers the matter will acknowledge that the Prime Minister is right in saying that if this bill is passed no government will ever dare repeal it.
Finally, nothing would be more appropriate than to refer again to the initiator of the bill and to one of his statements or promises. The Prime Minister said:
Henceforth, except within the limitations that security demands, Canadians will know that their rights are not to be loosely disregarded, and parliament will have before it at all times the warning which is emphasized in this bill of rights, namely that fundamental rights and freedoms within the federal jurisdiction shall not be made light of by this or future parliaments.
I would extend that also to the provinces, either legally or by precept, that within the federal jurisdiction fundamental rights and freedoms shall not be made light of by this or future parliaments.


Mr. B. C. Thompson (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I feel that history is being made here in this debate on the bill of rights and it is a great privilege to have an opportunity of having a seat in this house on this historic occasion.

During the debate many views have been expressed by various members. I think all the views have been expressed which could possibly be expressed and all the avenues of approach have been explored. Therefore I do not intend to speak at any length at all. I merely want to congratulate the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) on having realized the dream of many years when he introduced this bill. I want to congratulate him on the language of the bill, which I consider is very clear and very plain and simple, and thus very eloquent. It is language which can be readily understood by the layman as well as by the professional man.
When one aspires to be the Prime Minister of Canada I believe he must have in mind greater aims and objectives than just the mere holding of the office of Prime Minister. I think our present Prime Minister is justified in holding the great office of Prime Minister because of this one aim alone, although he has many aims and objectives.
This bill has been exposed to much criticism and also approval both inside and outside the house. It is quite obvious it is impossible to please everyone. It is impossible to draw up a bill in a form which will express everybody's ideas as to how a bill should be prepared. The main thing is that we need a bill of rights in Canada and we need one now.
Mr. Speaker, like Her Majesty's loyal opposition I am going to support this bill, but unlike them I am going to be consistent and speak in favour of it too. From the remarks I have heard them make this evening and during this debate I can only infer that they are just trying to justify their own inaction in regard to a bill of rights when they had the opportunity to bring one in while they were in office.
I believe it is very important that we should watch very carefully, especially in these days when government is being asked more and more to intervene in the life of the private individual, the relationship between the state and the individual. We should guard very carefully against arbitrary measures and encroachments on our human rights and fundamental freedom. In that respect, I think it is very desirable that we should reduce these rights and freedoms to writing so that we may have continually before us our objectives in that regard. It gives me a great deal of pleasure to be able to be here and support this measure for a Canadian bill of rights.


Edmund Davie Fulton: A very great deal has been said today in the course of this debate and also on Monday with regard to the bill of rights now before

the house, and it is obvious that between now and eleven o'clock I am not going to have sufficient time to make a complete review of what has been said.
I should like to start by attempting to outline for the house and particularly for the members of the opposition what they have obviously completely misconstrued and misinterpreted-the effect and extent of this bill and the concept that the government had in mind by way of a legislative enactment when it introduced this bill of rights. Our intention is to introduce a statute which will define the rights of all Canadians in clear and understandable language, a statute which will clearly authorize and assist the courts to interpret and protect those rights and which will, in addition, set a limit to executive and, in so far as it is possible or desirable, parliamentary authority to interfere with or abridge those rights. This, I submit, we have done. Ours is a draft bill of rights that he who runs may read.
I may have something to say later about this question of the language in which a bill of rights should be drafted, concerning which we heard so much from members of the opposition today and on Monday. At the present time I think it would suffice to say that had we used language as suggested, in particular by the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin), then certainly no one could understand it, let alone be inspired by the bill of rights which would have resulted.
What we wanted to do, and what I submit we have done, is draft a declaration of the rights applicable to all Canadians which will serve as indication to Canadians whether natural born or naturalized, of whatever origin, of whatever creed or whatever colour, that these rights are theirs by inheritance as Canadians. It has certainly been our intention to produce a bill in a compass which would enable it to be framed, if you will, and hung on the walls of our schools or churches or institutions of every sort so that a person might stand before it and read it and say: this is my inheritance as a Canadian.
Therefore we have, of course, been concerned not to be too long and verbose or too circumspect. We have been concerned to try to produce a declaration of what those rights are, couched in the simplest, the most effective terms, and we have been concerned to try to produce in addition an enforcement section, a section which makes it clear that those rights will be protected by the courts. This, again, is framed in language sufficiently clear that a person concerned about his rights will know what he is entitled to and how he will be able to go about asserting and protecting his rights.
Human Rights
There is at this stage just one point I want to make, and that is with reference to the suggestion by the Leader of the Opposition that perhaps the War Measures Act should be amended so as to make it clear that the governor in council would not have the right to deprive Canadian citizens of their citizenship by order in council even in wartime. It is obvious that this bill of rights and the debate in connection therewith will be of interest to Canadians of all sorts, including those who are naturalized Canadians as well as those who were born in this country, and therefore I think it is probably to be expected that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) will make what appeal he can to the ethnic groups in Canada by making the sort of remark he made.
But I point out that the remarks he made had nothing to do with the bill of rights. He was talking about amendments to the War Measures Act. Why he should drag that in was perfectly obvious, but I will go no further than I have gone because one must not, of course, impute motives. However, I do want to emphasize that the Leader of the Opposition dragged in a reference to an amendment to the War Measures Act that has nothing to do with the bill of rights at all.
I want to point out, too, that he continually overlooked the fact that it was his government, when it introduced the citizenship act, that provided not one way but six ways by which Canadians could be deprived of their citizenship by order in council. The Leader of the Opposition omitted to mention that this government rectified this situation in 1958 by amending the citizenship act so that naturalized Canadians could not lose their citizenship by action of the governor in council except in two circumstances instead of six.
Perhaps I should outline the ways in which the previous act had taken power by order in council to deprive naturalized Canadians of their citizenship. Prior to September 6, 1958, when we amended the act, the citizenship act contained in subsection 1 of section 19 six broad causes which provided for the revocation of Canadian citizenship of persons other than natural-born Canadian citizens. There is no time for me to deal with them in detail tonight, but anyone who wishes may read them, and I have provided the reference. Because it was felt that these provisions discriminated unfairly against persons naturalized in Canada, we introduced a bill to amend the citizenship act providing that five of these six provisions be deleted. Of the original six, our bill retained only that one which provided for the revocation of Canadian citizenship in the case of persons who have obtained certificates of naturalization or citizenship by
5790	HOUSE OF
Business of the House
false representation or fraud or by the concealment of material circumstances.
In this way, discriminations against naturalized Canadian citizens introduced by the former Liberal government were removed from the citizenship act. After deleting five of the six previous provisions, the bill included one new cause for revocation, and one only. This provides specifically-


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the minister would find this a convenient place at which to call it eleven o'clock.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Then may I call it eleven o'clock, and move the adjournment of the debate?



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: May I ask the leader of the house what is to be the business for tomorrow?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Tomorrow we will go on with the estimates as outlined on Monday night, beginning with the Department of Justice. There are only one or two items remaining there. Following that we will take the estimates of the R.C.M.P., then those of the Department of National Revenue, and then the completion of the estimates of the Department of Transport. If all these should be finished there are the other departments

we have listed-external affairs, northern affairs, labour and so on.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask when this bill will be debated again?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I think we might resume debate on this bill on Thursday and perhaps complete the debate that day, then carry on with the estimates.


Lionel Chevrier: Thursday of this week?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Thursday of this week.


Lionel Chevrier: Does that mean Thursday of this week?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Thursday of this week.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, does the minister not realize that twice now in the last few nights he has said that Wednesday, Thursday and Friday of this week are to be devoted to estimates?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Oh, yes, but I have always suggested when outlining the program for the week that it is a tentative program. We have made changes each week, many of them being made at the suggestion of hon. members on the other side of the house.


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

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

Mr. Hardie: 1.	What companies and individuals held priority rights on exploratory permits in the Arctic islands
5, 1960	5791
Questions
prior to June 1, I960, and what acreage was held by each?
2.	What companies and individuals were issued exploratory permits on or before the deadline of June 24, and what was the acreage given under permit to each?
3.	What has the government received by way of revenue from the sale of exploratory permits in the Arctic islands?
Answer by: Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):
1.	Priority applications as at June 1, 1960: Dominion Explorers Ltd	
4,066,030 acresRound Valley Oil Co. Ltd	
2,882,154	"W. R. Newman	
12,228,219	"Talent Oil & Gas Ltd	
3,021,590	"Dome Petroleum Ltd	
1,593,359	"C M. McAvoy	
2,846,417	"G. Radisics	
1,436,233	"Charter Oil Co. Ltd	
1,308,454	"Cree Oil of Canada Ltd	
7,388,129	"Trans Western Oil Ltd	
13,296,062	"M. C. McLeod & Co. Ltd	
1,729,324	"P. C. Nedham	
1,047,220	"G. A. Clarke	
1,418,961	"J.	W. Powelson	
892,672	"Terratest Co. Ltd	
1,377,648	"Chiean Petroleum Ltd	
437,202	"James Ross	
812,611	"M.J. Haley	
3,404,810	"W. Phipps	
67,512	"F. W. Chubb	
4,550,689	"A. G. Ghent	
82,988	"K.	G. Ellard	
4,962,955	"Canadian Homestead Oils Ltd	
2,521,167	"Siebens Leaseholds Ltd	
6,859,015	"David Rosen	
42,416,549	"Texaco Exploration Co	
2,992,374	"The California Standard Co	
8,573,582	"Dr. Florian Yandel Jr	
1,487,747	"Pampas Petroleum Corp	
838,594	"T. J. Rubeo	
3,418,898	"R. C. Cowell	
579,320	"M. T. Koven	
1,880,996	"W. Sheeky	
673,233	"C. E. Ridley	
3,773,658	"
146,866,282 acres
2.	List of permittees in Arctic islands: William R. Sheeky	
237,593 acresRound Valley Oil Co. Ltd	
2,746,836	"
Round Valley Oil Co. Ltd. and Talent Oil & Gas
Ltd	
126,564	"George H. Radisics	
737,286	"Trans Western Oils Ltd	
3,106,117	"Charter Oil Co. Ltd	
525,467	"Cree Oil of Canada (1958) Ltd	
4,450,022	"Canadian Homestead Oils Ltd	
134,304	"P. C. Nedham	
1,016,469	"Pampas Petroleum Company	
606,949	"W. W. Phipps	
67,516	"M. T. Koven	
219,741	"R. C. Cowell	
579,371	"T. J. Rubeo	
1,547,548	"Trans Western Oils Ltd	
2,448,806.5	"Dominion Explorers Ltd	
4,066,212.5	"M. C. McLeod and Co. Ltd	
1,164,199.5	"W. R. Newman	
3,441,215	"M.J. Haley	
97,203	"Talent Oil & Gas Ltd	
2,889,202	"Texaco Exploration Co. Ltd	
3,152,319.5	"James Ross	
798,638	"W. R. Newman	
1,083,930	"Dome Exploration Ltd	
1,471,029	"The California Standard Company	
2,297,427	"Round Valley Oil Co. Ltd	
34,116	"Total	
39,046,081 acres3.	The government received $191,500 from the sale of exploratory permits in the Arctic islands.
Wednesday, July 6, 1960


RESEARCH
[Stage Direction]
Second report of special committee on research-Mr. Murphy.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. John Pallet! (Peel) moved:
That the special committee on broadcasting appointed June 21, 1960, be composed of Miss Aitken, Mrs. Casselman, Messrs. Asselin, Bourbon-nais, Brassard (Lapointe), Caron, Chown, Creaghan, Danforth, Dorion, Drouin, Fairfield, Fisher, Forgie, Fortin, Halpenny, Keays, Lambert, MacEwan, Mac-quarrie, McCleave, McGrath, McIntosh, McQuillan, Pickersgill, Pratt, Pugh, Richard (Ottawa East), Robichaud, Rouleau, Simpson, Smith (Calgary South), Smith (Simcoe North), Tremblay and Webb.
Motion agreed to.