1960-07-07

[Stage Direction]
Thursday, July 7, 1960


Mr. Erhart Regier (Burnaby-Coquillam):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. My question of privilege is this. I have in my hand a copy of yesterday's Ottawa Citizen, and I note therein an article entitled "Divorce Blockade-Parliament May Sit On", written by Jack Best.
My first complaint is that what was supposed to be a meeting held in camera of the committee on procedure has apparently, in part at least, now been reported to the press. This being the case, I must now seek to make a correction of the false information that is contained in the article. As you will recall, I did tell the committee that it was my opinion that if among other things the committee would undertake to look into the method of handling divorce by this parliament and explore possible alternative methods, it would go a long way toward meeting our objections. Never at any time was I authorized, nor did I agree, to call off whatever blockade of divorce procedure may happen to exist.


Mr. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: Oh, it is a
blockade, is it?


Mr. R. J. McCleave (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I also rise on a question of privilege with reference to the same report. The report was an accurate quotation of my words, and an accurate reflection of what happened at that particular meeting.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he thinks he will be in a position to announce to the house before the end of the session the appointment of what has been called a Hoover-type commission to investigate the organization of the civil service.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, that subject has been thoroughly canvassed with a view to securing,
79951-0-371
as I am sure the Leader of the Opposition would expect, the most outstanding men and women in this country; because after all this will be a commission which will have tremendous responsibilities and can, if it is able to secure and mobilize the most outstanding personnel, make a valuable contribution in its field of responsibility which would be beneficial to Canadians for many years to come.
I am sure that when the Leader of the Opposition was a member of the cabinet he sometimes wanted very much to secure as members of these bodies people who were not always available; not because they would in any way decline the assumption of their duties as citizens, but because circumstances sometimes denied the participation which otherwise they would have given.
I am informed that the question contained these words "to investigate the civil service". Of course I am not assuming that that is going to be the purpose of the Hoover-type commission. When the terms of reference are made available they will make perfectly clear the field and the general ambit of the investigation to be made.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I did not use the words "investigate the civil service"; I used the words "investigate the organization of the civil service", which is a little different.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister arising out of the great and continuing interest in the government's consideration of the matter of income deficiencies of western farmers. Can the Prime Minister say whether a firm announcement of government policy will be made before the conclusion of this session so that in the event of an affirmative decision parliament will be able to vote the required moneys for immediate payment to producers?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I think an announcement as to the course to be followed in this connection can be expected before the end of the session. I can say this. Having regard to the acceleration of business in recent days, that should not be too far removed.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Paul Marlin (Essex Easl):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Agriculture a supplementary question, based on the suggestion that recent events have accelerated the movements of the government.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr, Marlin (Essex Easl):: Is the minister making arrangements for himself and his colleagues to meet with the liaison committee of western farmers before the end of this session?


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, in the terms used by the hon. member for Essex East, the movements of the government do not need any acceleration.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Provincial elections have had a tremendous effect.


Douglas Scott Harkness: This matter certainly will be looked after in due course.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My question was, was the minister or his colleagues going to meet with the liaison committee of western farmers before the end of the session?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I have nothing further to add to the various statements which the Prime Minister and I have made from time to time in this house during the past month or more in connection with meeting with the liaison committee.



JAPAN-INQUIRY AS TO PROGRESS IN IMPORT NEGOTIATIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Finance. Can the minister comment on what progress is being made in import negotiations with the Japanese regarding items of a sensitive nature, as mentioned previously by him?


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: There have been further negotiations with respect to imports of some products where those have not been in accord with the declared policy of orderly development of trade. Just yesterday I received a letter from the ambassador of Japan, written to me on his return to Canada from Tokyo, which concerns the application by the government of Japan of export quotas on shipments of hardwood plywood to Canada in the year 1960.
Since the letters he wrote to me two months ago in connection with shipments of textile
[Mr. Diefenbaker.l

products were tabled, I shall be glad, if it is the wish of the house, to table copies of this letter dated July 6, which was handed to me yesterday by the ambassador.
I may add that negotiations are continuing with respect to the application of quotas on a number of other commodities concerning which, as I have said, shipments have exceeded what could properly be described as an orderly growth of trade.



WATER RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Monfeifh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Assiniboia asked me a question relating to the possible presence of radioactive waste in Bow lake, Ontario. I am informed that regular sampling of the water of Bow lake for uranium and radium is carried out by the division of industrial hygiene of the Ontario department of health. The Ontario water resources commission also makes certain examinations of a bacteriological and chemical nature. Although the officers of the Department of National Health and Welfare are informed about the laboratory tests being made, they are not directly involved in this matter, which is under the close control of Ontario provincial authorities. I am further advised that the matter is before the mining court of Ontario in proceedings in which the company and the local complainants are represented.


Hazen Robert Argue: I should like to get a clarification of government policy. Is it not the usual policy of the federal government to keep tab on the whole question of contamination? Does the federal government not have the authority to take action to prevent contamination of lakes and streams?


Jay Waldo Monteith: I understand there is over-all authority under the Atomic Energy Control Act to issue a permit to a mine, but incidentally, there is also provision that any applicable provincial statutes or regulations that deal with mine safety and cognate matters are to be observed and complied with. As a result the provincial statute then applies.


Hazen Robert Argue: In other words there is no action taken by the federal government to protect Canadians from pollution. That is shameful.



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
Inquiries of the Ministry TELEVISION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, recently the hon. member for Algoma West asked me a question regarding the availability of the Sault Ste. Marie airport. It is expected that runways, taxiways and aircraft parking areas will be either completed or largely completed before the end of the present year, but a number of related services, including the instrument landing system, are not scheduled for installation before next year, and the program for provision of a terminal building is such that we cannot expect it to be ready before some time in 1961.
Everything possible will be done to expedite the various phases of this project. Much of the remaining work, however, is of a highly technical nature, and the actual opening of the airport this year is not physically possible. This timetable is comparable with the timetable for construction of completely new major airports, and is in accordance with the timetable which was set earlier for this project.


Mr. G. E. Nixon (Algoma West):: Mr. Speaker, I did not hear what the minister said about the terminal building at Sault Ste. Marie. Have tenders been called for the terminal yet?


George Harris Hees: I am not sure whether tenders have actually been called, but we expect to open the new terminal next year.



HALIFAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisia-Twillin-gaie):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Transport whether he can tell us when the new Halifax airport is going to be opened for regular service.


George Harris Hees: I believe it is in operation at the present time. The actual official opening of the airport is set for September 10 next.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Can the minister say
whether regular commercial services are now using the new airport?


George Harris Hees: I will check on that. I expected they would be starting to do so about now, but I will find out exactly for the hon. member.
79951-0-3711



STATEMENT ON INQUIRY AS TO IDENTITY OF E. L. BUSHNELL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of
Transport): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Laurier asked me two questions regarding the recommendation made by the board of broadcast governors for the Ottawa television licence. The answer to both his questions is yes.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Labour whether the committee appointed about three months ago, I believe, to try to find better methods of statistical measurement of unemployment, has yet reported and, if not, when it is likely to do so.


Hon. Michael Siarr (Minister of Labour):: No, Mr. Speaker, the committee has not reported yet. Two members of the committee were away for a period of time and no progress could be made until their return. I understand they are back now and that the matter is being considered further. I hope the report will be forthcoming shortly.



WINTER WORKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask
a supplementary question, in connection with which I hope the minister can report some progress. Can he say whether the government is now in a position to announce if it is prepared to expand its winter works program in order to make it more effective, and whether the government proposes in fact to embark on such a program next fall and winter?


Michael Starr: No decision on this matter has been made as yet.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Does the minister expect to be in a position to make an announcement about this matter before his estimates are before the house?


Michael Starr: I cannot commit myself to that.
5882	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry HOUSING



LIMITED DIVIDEND PROJECTS-INQUIRY AS TO GOVERNMENT POLICY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Garland (Nipissing):: May I direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Since no housing units under the limited dividend scheme were approved in May, 1960, as compared to 484 in May, 1959, can the minister confirm or deny that this means the government is attempting to curtail limited dividend projects?


Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public Works):: No, Mr. Speaker, there has been no change in government policy. As my hon. friend knows, the amendment to the National Housing Act was not passed until April 6, and there are many limited dividend projects being processed at the present time. It is only coincidental that in the month of May none had been granted.


John Richard Garland: Is the minister aware, in view of what he says about the amendment being approved in April, that there were 81 similar units approved in April?



NEWFOUNDLAND-ST. JOHN'S LAND ASSEMBLY PROJECT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  C. W. Carler@Burin-Burgeo: May I
direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Public Works. Has the minister anything further to report on the negotiations with respect to land development in St. John's?


David James Walker: No, Mr. Speaker.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: I should like to ask the Minister of National Revenue a question about his organization, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Has he received a report from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation concerning the phony interview on "Close-Up"? If so, what is the procedure now with regard to this particular matter?


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of National Revenue):: I have received no report from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation on this matter.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Would the minister comment on the statement in a communication dated June 29 from William Slewidge, of the construction and general labourers union, local 180, to the effect that Germans who were brought to Canada for the specific purpose of acting as technical advisers to Associated Mining Construction Ltd. of Esterhazy, Saskatchewan, are now being used by that company in a type of strikebreaking role?


Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: I cannot comment at the moment. I received a telegram, and then the long holiday week end intervened. I have asked for a detailed report on the situation.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask whether or not the hon. lady has abandoned her intention to bring in amendments to the Immigration Act this year?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I do not recall that I ever voiced any such intention, Mr. Speaker.



REVISION IN HOURS OF SITTING WHEN CONSIDERING LEGISLATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: When the house approved, on Monday, June 27, an alteration in the sitting hours the intention, unexpressed in the motion, was that on any day on which we considered legislation the hours of sitting for Monday and Tuesday in the motion would apply. Consequently today, when we are considering legislation, the hours of sitting would be the same as for Monday or Tuesday, which means that the house would sit from 11 until 1 and resume again at 2.


Mr. Speaker:: In order to be sure that the order of the house does carry out this intention, which I think it does not at the moment, would the house give unanimous consent to whatever amendment would be appropriate so that the house will rise for a luncheon adjournment when the house is considering legislation?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



CANADA ELECTIONS ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: Can the Acting Secretary of State say whether it is his intention at this session to introduce amendments to the Canada Elections Act?
Kon. Leon Balcer (Acting Secretary of State): Mr. Speaker, this is a matter of government policy. The intention of the government will be announced by the house leader.



ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the following communication:
Ottawa, July 7, 1960
Sir:
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Patrick Kerwin, Chief Justice of Canada, acting as Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber today at 5.45 p.m. for the purpose of giving the royal assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be, sir.
Your obedient servant,
E. Joly de Lotbiniere
Assistant Secretary to the Governor General CIVIL DEFENCE



INQUIRY AS TO COMPULSORY PARTICIPATION IN EXERCISES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: Can the Minister of National Health and Welfare inform the house what regulations or orders are in effect or, if none are presently in effect, what are required in order to enable the compulsory participation of the population in civil defence exercises?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Certainly as far as the Department of National Health and Welfare is concerned, Mr. Speaker, there are no orders in effect on this matter.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask
the minister a supplementary question. He says "as far as the Department of National Health and Welfare is concerned". Can he tell us to which minister such a question having to do with civil defence should be directed?


Jay Waldo Monteith: To my knowledge, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest to the hon. members who are asking this question that in
Inquiries of the Ministry effect they are asking for information about orders and regulations which are equally accessible to all hon. members of the house.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The question of the hon. member for Trinity was undoubtedly based on what someone said yesterday in Toronto with regard to compulsion in the matter of civil defence workers. The hon. member was simply asking for information as to which minister was responsible for this phase of civil defence. The Minister of National Health and Welfare has said that, as far as he is concerned he could not say. My question is this. Which minister in the government can give us an answer?


Jay Waldo Monteith: If I recall the article correctly, Mr. Speaker, it seemed to me that any suggestion concerning compulsory participation was of a future nature or, in other words, a conjecture.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I have a supplementary question. This matter is becoming increasingly urgent. The tests are planned for early September in Toronto. I should like the minister to clarify first whether this comes within federal jurisdiction or provincial jurisdiction, as was suggested by the Toronto director. I should also like to ask whether he would now answer the question posed by my colleague the hon. member for Essex East with respect to which minister replies for the government in these matters.


Jay Waldo Monteith: As I say, Mr. Speaker, not having a clear recollection of the article, I think probably I should take the question as notice and see what the article said.



WHEAT BOARD REGULATIONS RESPECTING DELIVERIES TO FEED MILLS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Has the
Minister of Trade and Commerce anything to report as a result of the inquiry he said yesterday he was going to make into whether the wheat board are enforcing quotas in accordance with the law as upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada, or whether they have abandoned the law on the basis of the undisclosed report of the agriculture committee?


Gordon Minto Churchill: There has been no abandonment of the law.


Hazen Robert Argue: Are these quotas being enforced at this time in accordance with the earlier practice?


Gordon Minto Churchill: There has been no change in the action of the wheat board.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Hazen Robert Argue: Are the laws being enforced?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I said there has been no abandonment of the law, which in other words means that the law is being enforced.



DEFENCE PRODUCTION

[Stage Direction]
. CANADAIR-REFERENCE TO FIGHTER PLANE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Mason Fisher: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Defence Production relating to the contract for fighter planes awarded to Canadair last year. Has it been found necessary to revise the contract price upward, and if so is it now above the bids put in by de Havilland and A. V. Roe?


Hon. Raymond O'Hurley (Minister of Defence Production):: The answer is no.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS NEWFOUNDLAND-INQUIRY AS TO STATEMENT BY MINISTER OF FINANCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if I may ask the Minister of Finance whether it is correct that he stated in Newfoundland that the government intended to restore the rights of the province under term 29 of the terms of union?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I must decline to accept that bait. The fact is that when I was in Newfoundland I quoted the language of the statute that was passed at the 1959 session of parliament. I also pointed out that this government honours the instructions of parliament and the decisions of this house. That will be done during the forthcoming conference.


John Whitney Pickersgill: In other words the minister did not undertake to restore the rights of Newfoundland.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That, of course, is not only an intolerable but an untrue gloss upon the truth. The fact is that the action taken by parliament last year was, as this parliament decided, completely in accord with the provisions of the terms of union and the recommendations of the royal commission. There is no repudiation. The hon. member has no right in fact or in truth to make such an assertion. What was undertaken at that time was written into the statute law of this country, and that statute law will be carried out; let there be no doubt about that.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is an intolerable gloss on the facts.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is an intolerable excuse for a question on the orders of the day.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Hon. members may recall that the house spent some time last session in the same debate that now seems to be developing.



HUMAN RIGHTS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, July 5, 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.
Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice):: In
the few minutes during which I spoke on Tuesday evening I gave a necessarily brief outline of the approach of the government and the legislative scheme which we had in mind in drafting and submitting this bill of rights to parliament. My remarks in this connection will be found at page 5789 of Hansard.
During the same few minutes I also attempted to indicate the true nature of the alleged concern expressed by the Leader of the Opposition in his opening speech with regard to the necessity of amending the War Measures Act to remove from the governor in council the power of revoking citizenship by order in council. I indicated that this was a shallow concern, in that the Leader of the Opposition overlooked the fact that it was his government which when it first introduced the citizenship act, provided six reasons for which the governor in council could revoke the citizenship of naturalized Canadians. I also pointed out that the present government, in the amendment recently enacted, had eliminated all but one of those grounds, so that now, in effect, citizenship can only be revoked when it, or naturalization, was obtained on the basis of false or fraudulent misrepresentation or deliberate concealment of facts. As a result of those amendments the only other situation in which citizenship can now be revoked is where a naturalized person, being charged with treason, absents himself from the country and refuses to return to stand his trial. So the answer to this aspect of the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition is that this present government has shown a proper concern to remove discrimination as between naturalized and natural born Canadians in this respect.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question?

Human Rights


Edmund Davie Fulton: Not at this point, if I may; my time is limited. However, I will endeavour to leave time to answer questions at the end of my remarks.
I should like to proceed now to deal with criticisms made by opposition spokesmen with respect to the bill of rights. These have been many, mostly ill founded, and I suggest they could properly be characterized as showing an absolute refusal to concede that the government of the present Prime Minister is or could be doing anything to serve the interest of Canadians in the protection of their rights and freedoms, and by a determination to deny that the present bill of rights is or could be of benefit to Canada. If my answers to the criticisms are not perhaps as philosophical as might have been expected in a discussion of this nature, I can only point out that their nature is dictated by the ill-conceived nature of the criticisms with which my remarks must deal.
Indeed, it is extraordinarily revealing to analyse the attitude, particularly of the Liberal party, toward this bill of rights today. Their attitude is extraordinary, because they have for 22 years opposed and scorned the very idea of a bill of rights in Canada. They now profess to support the principle, and indeed they profess themselves to be so much attached to it that they say they would go very much further.
Their attitude is revealing because, having made this strange and opportune about-face, they then attack with fury the first concrete attempt that has been made by any government of Canada for the enactment of a Canadian bill of rights.
When one analyses the inconsistencies of
to be a hasty and ill-conceived judgment, made before the statute has even been enacted. It is a hasty judgment on the basis of history. I point out to hon. members opposite that it was 400 years after the writing of Magna Carta before that great document was put to real use, its first real use being to destroy the effect of the doctrine of the divine right of kings. However, it was some 400 years before the document was used to its maximum purpose and effect. We should,
I think, appreciate with regard to this bill of rights that we are not enacting legislation for today only, or for this generation only, but that we are placing on our statute books legislation which we hope will have validity and effect in future generations.
It does seem to me difficult to understand on what basis hon. gentlemen opposite say that this legislation will have no effect. When one analyses particularly the provisions of clause 3 it becomes apparent that the bill will have effect with respect to all past federal statutes and all regulations made under those statutes which are within the competence of the federal parliament. If hon. members will examine the clause they will find that parliament is being asked to say that the bill has effect with respect also to the application and interpretation of all future statutes of this parliament, and that if parliament desires to exempt any of its future statutes from the operation of the bill it can only do so by an express provision contained in the subsequent statute. On that basis I think the house will agree with me that the criticisms of those who say that the bill will have little practical effect are shallow and ill founded.
their criticisms and perceives their failure to appreciate the extent and effect of the bill before the house, it is obvious that their attacks are based in large part upon a refusal to concede that anything useful can be done thereby, thus constituting a reversion to their former position, and in part on a jealous refusal to acknowledge the fact that the Conservative government under the present Prime Minister is in fact making a real contribution to the further delineation of our Canadian freedoms.
Another criticism of the bill is that it does not enumerate basic economic rights. It is, of course, a fact that this bill does confine itself to the basic human rights and fundamental freedoms in the sense in which those words are generally understood. This is the great field in which it is considered necessary to protect the liberties of the individual.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It mentions
property, which is the sole economic concept in the bill.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Would the minister tell us from what document he is reading?


Edmund Davie Fulton: The minister is referring to notes which he himself has prepared for his own use.
Let me demonstrate some of the inconsistencies and inaccuracies of the criticisms we have heard. One of the criticisms is that the bill will be of little practical effect. May I point out in the first place that this seems


Edmund Davie Fulton: The bill does not purport to be a charter of economic freedoms but, as the hon. member for Essex East himself has pointed out, it does enumerate one basic freedom in that field when it refers to the right of the individual to the enjoyment of property which, of course, in a true sense is one of the bases of economic welfare and prosperity.
The suggestion has been made that we should have attempted to write in a specific

Human Rights
charter of economic rights. In order to assert such rights in the act, to be safe for the future they would have to be so general as really to be meaningless. If on the other hand an attempt was made to enumerate them with particularity I ask hon. members to realize that this would not be a safe course to follow because there is a great deal of difference in this respect between the field of basic human rights and fundamental freedoms on the one hand and that of economic rights and liberties on the other. The one are fundamental and changeless over the years; but one has only to realize the changing nature of the economy and the changing nature of the views with regard to economic rights to realize that that type of right is an entirely different matter.
I would ask hon. members to think how many practices which are now regarded as right and proper in the field of labour activities would have been prohibited absolutely had there been any attempt, say 100 years ago, to write a charter of economic rights and liberties. That is simply because the views of what was right and proper and what freedoms should be exercised and allowed in the field of economic activity 100 years ago were entirely different from the views of today. It therefore seems to me a very dangerous thing to suggest that we should attempt to write and define now for all time what are the limits of rights and freedoms in the economic field. However, it is quite a different proposition when we attempt to define and indicate the limits and the entitlement to rights and freedoms in this field of basic law and liberty.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Where is the hon. member's logic there?


Edmund Davie Fulton: The next criticism that was made to which I should like to refer is that *this is a "mere statute". It is said that our proposal is weak and feeble because it is a mere statute of the parliament of Canada and not imbedded in the constitution. It is suggested that somehow to imbed it in the constitution would place it further beyond the reach of the executive and even of succeeding parliaments than the present bill and would give it an aura of sanctity.
My first comment must be one of surprise that hon. members of parliament in the opposition, elected by the sovereign vote of a sovereign people, should so disregard and decry their own position, and thus belittle the trust and responsibility which their electors have reposed in them, as to portray a solemn enactment by the parliament of Canada as something of little consequence and no lasting effect. After all, this is what we were all elected for, to legislate. Our courts recognize 
that a statute of parliament represents the highest and most completely binding expression of the authority of the people. To denigrate and decry the effectiveness of legislation of this parliament, as is done by hon. members of the opposition, is to make an unfounded, ill-judged and misconceived attack upon the whole process of democratic legislation itself, which we are sworn to uphold.
As to such an attack being unfounded and ill-judged, the facts speak for themselves. But it is also misconceived in that it is based on an entirely false assumption as to the binding and solemn effects of a statute standing on its own as compared with a statute having the force of a constitutional amendment.
In the first place, the very charters cited with such fervour by hon. members opposite -the Magna Carta, the bill of rights, the petition of right and the habeas corpus act- all, with the exception of the Magna Carta, which was written before a recognizable parliament was assembled, were nothing more than "mere statutes" enacted by parliament, exactly comparable in that sense to the bill now before this house.
In the second place it seems hardly possible that those who make this attack could be so ignorant as to suppose that the Canadian constitution is found only in the British North America Act, which I would remind them is a British statute.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Not entirely.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Our constitution, like that of the United Kingdom, is composed of a large number of statutes passed by both the United Kingdom and Canadian parliaments, and an infinite number of conventions and parliamentary usages. This bill of rights would become part of our constitution just as the Senate and House of Commons Act, the Supreme Court Act of 1875, the Yukon Territories Act and Northwest Territories Act became part of our constitution just as soon as they were passed by parliament. Are my hon. friends opposite going to say that these statutes, the Supreme Court Act and the Senate and House of Commons Act, are of no effect because they are mere statutes enacted by the parliament of Canada? That is what they argue. These statutes are part of our constitution and are recognized as such. This bill of rights, although a statute of the parlia-metn of Canada and not an amendment to the British North America Act, will be of equal force and effect as part of the constitution of Canada.
In the third place this government has considered and rejected the suggestion that the bill of rights should take the form of an amendment to the British North America Act

because we believe that the Canadian bill of rights should be an act of the Canadian parliament.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Just like the Judges Act.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It is inescapable from a study of the complete arguments made by the opposition that they would prefer to see the Canadian bill of rights enacted in London rather than in Ottawa.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is not true.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It is true, because they have suggested that the bill of rights should take the form of a comprehensive enactment covering rights and freedoms within the federal and provincial spheres of jurisdiction.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Just as the Prime Minister did in 1948.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Such an enactment would in that case have to be by way of amendment to the British North America Act. Under the present circumstances such an amendment as this can only be achieved by an address passed by this parliament praying that the United Kingdom parliament will further amend the statute which they first enacted. By the nature of their arguments hon. members opposite have thus established that they would prefer to see it done by a bill of the United Kingdom parliament rather than by a bill or statute of the Canadian parliament.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Where is that stated?


Edmund Davie Fulton: It is to be remembered that not only would our Canadian bill of rights be thus a British statute, but it could also be repealed or amended in exactly the same way as that in which it was first brought into being. This means a single stage debate on the resolution for the presentation of an address, instead of the three stages of debate necessary to the enactment of a Canadian statute, as we are asking parliament to do.
If, therefore, hon. members of the opposition are prepared to accept the position that a Canadian bill of rights should be enacted by the British parliament, which we are not prepared to accept, the fact remains that even such a process would not achieve as they claim, the objective of making the bill of rights sacrosanct in the sense of precluding hasty, ill-conceived or prejudiced amendments. The provisions would not be entrenched-indeed they would hardly be planted-because they could be altered or uprooted by a single stage debate in this house.
It may be that having recognized the false position into which they have thus betrayed themselves by asking for a British enactment of a Canadian bill of rights, hon. members 79951-0-372
Human Rights
of the opposition may seek to extricate themselves by suggesting an alternative. They may say, "Oh, no, we do not really want a bill of rights that covers provincial as well as federal fields. Let us have one confined to the federal field exclusively, in which case you can enact it by amendment of the British North America Act under the provisions of section 91(1)". That would be a simple enactment by the Canadian parliament.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Hear, hear.


Edmund Davie Fulton: This, of course, would be impossible if their suggestion that the bill of rights should cover other than the federal field were followed. Mr. Speaker, by confining it to the federal field as we are doing, it is true that we could then enact it by way of an amendment to section 91. However, they then fail in their argument that they want a provision which will be inviolate and entrenched, because all they would toe doing by following that method, notwithstanding their fervid and sonorous criticisms, would be the very thing they have criticized us for doing, namely passing a mere statute of the Canadian parliament.
Therefore it becomes quite obvious, Mr. Speaker, whatever way you look at it, first that the proposal now before the house, being a statute of this house enacting a bill of rights, will become a part of the Canadian constitution. Second, it will be just as difficult of subsequent amendment as an amendment under section 91 of the B.N.A. Act. Third, as against the other proposal of the opposition, the main criticism that it should cover both federal and provincial fields, there is the inestimable advantage that we are enacting a Canadian bill of rights by an act of the Canadian parliament instead of by an act of the United Kingdom parliament.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Why was that not done?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Another argument of hon. members of the opposition is that there has been no consultation with the provinces; that we failed to do that and to produce, instead of a bill confined exclusively to the federal sphere, a bill which would affect both federal and provincial spheres of jurisdiction.
There are two answers to this. The first is that it is the responsibility of the dominion government to deal first with matters under its own authority, and the indications are clear that it would not be possible to get early agreement with the provinces for an amendment of the nature suggested.

Human Rights
Had we decided to initiate discussions first and failed to get agreement, the opposition would be the first to criticize us for proceeding in the absence of agreement. Had we delayed further in introducing the bill, because of the difficulty of getting agreement, my hon. friends who now express such an impatient desire to see an effective bill of rights would certainly not have withheld their criticism of any further delay. It is therefore the usual Liberal and C.C.F. tactic that we have seen so often in this house of trying to have it both ways.
The second answer to this criticism is that we believe that the question of constitutional amendment should be approached on the basis of respect for that constitution itself. The very foundation of the Canadian constitution is recognition of divided spheres of responsibility. It is surely only when a problem cannot be solved without an amendment enacted by the federal authority that such a course becomes the only one that can be followed. Such I believe to have been the case in the provision of retirement age for judges, which was recently presented to this house. But there are cases where an objective can be met by uniform and complementary legislation of each authority in its own field. This bill of rights we believe to be one of those cases. The opposition approach to this problem is of course based on their traditional centralizing tendencies; solve the problem by seeking to centralize here.
We have considered that in this particular matter the better and more workable approach is for the federal government to put its own house in order and then, that being accomplished, provincial governments may be urged to enact complementary legislation in their own fields; for, after all, persuasion based upon proper example is often more effective, and in situations such as this more workable, than an attempt to impose a view which suggests that responsibility lies only at one level. In this process the people themselves play an essential part in that, having seen it properly done in one field, they may make their views known and bring their powers of persuasion to bear in the proper manner upon provincial governments, which after all they also elect.
It is our hope that, one province having already enacted a bill of rights and the federal government having enacted a bill of rights in its field, other provinces should follow suit. If this development occurs, then the whole field of human rights and fundamental freedoms in every part of every jurisdiction of Canada may be covered by the appropriate legislation without there having been any violence either to the spirit or to the letter of the constitution.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That was suggested by the opposition.


Edmund Davie Fulton: We believe that where the constitution speaks so clearly as to the jurisdiction over civil rights, the method we are following is not only in keeping with the principles of our constitution, but in the long run, it may well be more apt to produce the desired result, by respecting the limits of our jurisdiction, than by the federal government attempting to impose the view that the only way the matter can be handled is by surrendering or transferring authority to legislate to the federal parliament.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I say without hesitation that our approach is in keeping with the spirit of the constitution; it discharges our responsibilities in our own field, and recognizes that it is the responsibility of other jurisdictions to do the same in their fields. We believe that by a mutual recognition of responsibilities we are much more apt to get effective, workable, and acceptable and complete coverage of every aspect of human rights and fundamental freedoms in Canada, accepted by the provincial governments as well if they enact their own bills, than if we seek to impose upon the provinces our view that there should be just one general federal enactment by way of amendment of the constitution. We say that it is quite possible to have a constitution which will work in this field if you recognize the way it is supposed to work; make it work but do not do what my hon. friends of the opposition seek to do, impose your views on others and seek to solve every problem by changing the constitution unilaterally.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Political none-sense.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The anguish in that cry indicates the depth to which my shaft has sunk in my hon. friend's bosom, and indicates his belated recognition of the shallowness of the criticism of himself and his party against this bill.
There were a number of other criticisms made by the opposition, not all of which I shall have time to deal with, but I think perhaps I should deal primarily with the criticisms of what members opposite have called the pedestrian and uninspiring language of this bill. My hon. friends in the opposition seem to forget that we are writing a statute, not a poem; but even in this criticism they are inconsistent. I do not know how many poets there may be opposite, Mr. Speaker; I should doubt whether there are very many, but I can assure my hon. friends that if we had wanted to produce a literary work we would have called in

literary experts who could have written us that kind of production. What we are trying to do is to enact a statute having legal effect, so we called in legal draftsmen. Even if my hon. friend thinks that statutes should be written by poets and poems by legal draftsmen, I do not accept that kind of ridiculous argument.
It is interesting to see how inconsistent my hon. friends are in their own criticism. On the one hand, both the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Essex East claimed that the bill does nothing, contributes nothing and effects nothing by way of substantive law; yet on the other hand they ask us to do this with a greater quantity of high sounding words. What extraordinary criticism; that a bill that does nothing should nevertheless be required to do it in a graceful, poetic manner.
But here there is even greater inconsistency. It is the Leader of the Opposition himself who has reminded us, in his own words, as reported at page 5661 of Hansard, that:
Freedoms are not guaranteed by words, even words in a constitution, let alone by words in an ordinary, normal act of parliament. Earlier as well as contemporary history is littered with the wreckage of high-sounding declarations and bills of rights which were to guarantee so very much and last forever.
Well, this is a salutary reminder. We had that sort of thing in mind when we drafted the bill before the house, which in plain and simple language not only declares what our rights and freedoms are but ensures against its being a mere wreckage by providing an operative clause under which Canadians may seek and find the protection of the courts for the specific recognition of our rights.
But having reminded us of the dangers of leaving freedom to be protected by mere words alone, an error which we have guarded against in this bill, the Leader of the Opposition falls into the very error of which he has warned us. As found on page 5664 of Hansard he urges that we should have concentrated our attention upon producing a measure which would-
-not only be broad and deep In its meaning but should be inspiring in its language: something that will stir the pulse, stimulate our national patriotism, something that could be read and be remembered by school children on July 1.
Again, Mr. Speaker, as examples of what we should have done, we have been referred to the great constitutional documents of the past. We have been told that these documents are inspired examples of artistic oratory, with nowhere a trace of prosaic and legalistic 79951-0-372J
Human Rights
formula. We were told particularly by the hon. member for Essex East that a reading of these historic constitutional documents, the Magna Carta, the petition of right, the habeas corpus act and the bill of rights, to mention only a few that he named, would convince us that our bill is a poor and pedestrian exercise, couched as it is, and as a statute ought to be, in words that are intended to create a precise understanding and to be capable of a precise definition.
An analysis of these criticisms, Mr. Speaker, reveals how shallow are the comments of the opposition and upon what infinitesimal knowledge of the subject they are based. One wonders whether any of these hon. gentle-mne have even read, let alone studied, the documents to which they refer. Magna Carta contains the most minute and legalistic provisions to outline the rights it was designed to declare and protect. It does contain, it is true, some shining examples of clear and lucid statement, but these are almost submerged in a welter of minute provisions to give effect in detail to the rights which are declared.
Again, to refer to the petition of right, the terms used by the hon. member for Essex East show that he can hardly have read it, let alone understood it. Both it and the habeas corpus act contain great particularities as to the complaints of the subjects which they are designed to cure and as to the methods and remedies by which the rights will be protected in the future.
Since the hon. member for Essex East has cited the bill of rights as an example of how such a provision ought to be drawn, may I refer him to some of its specific language:
... that the freedom of speech in debates or proceedings in parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of parliament; that excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
May I ask hon. members to compare this language with the language of our statute in which we have recognized and declared the continued existence of human rights and fundamental freedoms in Canada, as set out in clause 2 in this way in part:
(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: .. .
(c)	freedom of religion;
(d)	freedom of speech;
(e)	freedom of assembly and association; and
(f)	freedom of the press.


Paul Joseph James Martin: All of which is part of our law now.

Human Rights


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I particularly ask those who might otherwise be misled by the criticism of the hon. member for Essex East to compare the language with regard to punishment which I have quoted from the English bill of rights with the provision in our bill. The English bill of rights provides that excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. Our bill provides that no statute shall be construed or interpreted as imposing or authorizing the imposition of torture, or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. There is a striking similarity of language.
It is clear, therefore, that we are in fact following, in the framing of our bill, the fine traditions of the great constitutional documents of history, namely that rights should be clearly and simply defined in legal language capable of being understood by the most humble person affected. This we have done in clause 2.
We are also following the tradition of those same documents that the rights thus defined should be protected in a manner recognized under the rule of law, binding on the executive, interpreted and applied by the courts, and having the sanction of a parliamentary enactment, the highest authority in the land. This we have done by clause 3.
Indeed, when I refer the house to a passage in the speech of the Leader of the Opposition appearing at page 5661 of Hansard it will become apparent that, inadvertently and accidentally, the Leader of the Opposition himself has recognized the soundness of the drafting and framework of our bill of rights. He said at that time:
Incorruptible and respected courts enforcing laws made by free men in parliament assembled and dealing with specific matters, with specific sanctions to enforce their observance; these are the best guarantee of our rights and liberties. This is the tried and tested British way, and this is a better course to follow than the mere pious affirmation of general principles, to which some political societies are addicted.
An understanding of the scheme of this bill of rights makes it clear that it is precisely on that basis that it has been laid. We are grateful to the Leader of the Opposition for having come, even though unwittingly, to the support of the approach we have followed.
(Translation):


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, we are entering upon our third day of debate on the bill of rights. In the course
[Mr. Martin (Essex East) .1
of this discussion we have heard a good many speeches, some good, some not so good, according to our own views on the matter. The Prime Minister's (Mr. Diefenbaker) own contribution was, of course, a remarkable one. As for the chief of the opposition (Mr. Pearson), his statement will, to my mind, leave its mark on our parliamentary records.
The Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) has just completed his speech. Of course, he dealt with the matter from a legal point of view, but may I tell him, incidentally, that several authorities are of the opinion that the arguments he submitted a few moments ago are not only erroneous but misleading.
We have also heard from the Associate Minister of National Defense (Mr. Sevigny), and I am still wondering how his remarks could have any bearing on the bill of rights we are considering. However, if the minister's speech was not altogether flawless, I can unhesitatingly say that he spoke like a gentleman. As for the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Walker), he is unfortunately unacquainted with gentlemanliness. I might press the point, but I do not want to aggrieve the Minister of Public Works any further.
I should also say to the Minister of Justice that he too is beginning to show a tendency to take the same line as the Minister of Public Works. That is precisely the attitude he took, not today, fortunately, but at the beginning of his remarks last Tuesday. It seems to me that the sooner those ministers of the crown will realize that this course of action in the house is not the one which commends itself to hon. members and to the people of Canada, the better it will be for them and for those around them.


David James Walker: Mr. Speaker, let us get back to the point.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, as I listened closely to the speech of the Associate Minister of National Defence, I could not help wondering how it had struck the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Dorion). I refer particularly to the last part, which practically cuts right across ideas advocated for years by the hon. member for Bellechasse.
Mr. Speaker, in spite of what the Minister of Justice has just said, everyone agrees on the need to recognize and protect human rights and fundamental freedoms in this country. For our part we support the principle of the bill. I think there is complete unanimity, both inside and outside Liberal ranks, on the need to protect fundamental freedoms and individual rights. This is at

the very basis of our culture and our civilization. However, there are objections to the bill, not only as to form but also as to substance.
The first objection on which I should like to elaborate at this time is directed at the government's delay in submitting the bill only at this late stage of the session. In my view, the delay is unaccountable. The bill was introduced in the house in 1958, and we have not heard about it since. Why did the government have to wait until 1960? Why did they put it off until the dying days of the session? Why did they wait so long, particularly at a time when we have to sit at almost impossible hours, before introducing to the house a piece of legislation which is so important, as indeed the Minister of Justice himself has just pointed out, not only to the house but to the whole country?
The second objection is this: Why should not the bill be submitted to a joint committee of both houses, as the Prime Minister himself had promised it would be? We could thus avoid duplication, and the joint committee could, at the same time, give its full attention to a study of this matter which you, yourselves, gentlemen of the government, consider so important. Otherwise, a tremendous amount of time will be lost, since the committee of the whole would first have to consider the bill, then refer it to the committee of the Senate.
I now come to the third objection. The government has completely ignored, or at least paid not the least attention to the recommendations made to the Prime Minister, in April 1959, by 29 societies or organizations. His purpose, when he introduced the bill in 1958, was to allow associations to make representations to the government. They sharply and seriously criticized the bill in a brief I have here in my hand, and of which the Prime Minister and the government have a copy; but the government completely ignored it.
The fourth objection is this. There has been no consultation with the provinces. No attempt whatever was made to draft a joint statement by the provinces and the federal government. The Minister of Public Works said this in his speech: "Why attempt to convene the provinces to discuss a matter of such importance, when you see what happened a few years ago at which time a federal-provincial conference broke up without reaching any agreement?" That, sir, is a pretext,
Human Rights
and not a reason for failure to consult with the provinces. This does not answer the objections, nor did the Minister of Justice answer them in his speech.
The fifth objection is as follows: The true protection of human rights should find a place in the constitution. This bill of rights should be part of the constitution. There must be strong insistence that the constitution be amended to that end. How can we have an effective bill without the approval of the provinces? We already know what the new premier of the province of Quebec has stated in this regard. I shall not add to what has already been said in this house, but why could not an attempt be made at the forthcoming provincial conference, July 25 to 27, to come to some understanding with the provinces in this regard? There has never been any suggestion from this side of the house of encroachment upon provincial jurisdiction. Nor is it a matter of surrender of provincial jurisdiction to the federal government, but of restricting the prerogatives of the legislatures with regard to their own citizens.
Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that there is only one way to protect human rights, and the only effective way to do so is to avoid infringing on our constitutional jurisdictions. Therefore, a joint federal-provincial declaration could be included in our constitution itself, as was done by Mr. St. Laurent in 1949. Any alternative solution, Mr. Speaker, would add nothing new, and especially nothing effective, to the protection of the rights of man, but might even be a breach of the constitution.
The Prime Minister has made many a speech on the subject of a great world charter of human rights, and while he was doing so the rights of man were being trampled underfoot in a country of the British commonwealth. He even hesitated, for a time, before stating his views on what was happening in that commonwealth country; for a while he hesitated before condemning such flagrant discrimination. On the other hand, in 1949 Mr. St. Laurent caused to be written in the constitution-and I am happy to repeat this-a genuine bill of rights, rights and privileges peculiar to the provinces, rights of minorities in the field of education, rights of minorities with regard to the French language, the right to a parliamentary session each year, the right of parliament to hold office for'five years and to declare an election.

Human Rights
All this can be found in the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1952, XIII George VI, chapter 81; it can be seen there how the constitution was amended to that effect, under section 91 of the British North America Act.
Was no thought given to proceeding in that fashion? Perhaps there was, but the Minister of Justice considers that there is no sense to it.
Reference was made, in the course of this debate to coloured people whose rights have been encroached upon, not only in Ontario but also in Quebec and elsewhere. Are those people, crying for justice, to be denied protection by some section of this bill of rights? Let the Prime Minister tell us under what section they would be so, since the matter comes under provincial government jurisdiction.
There has been reference also to the Japanese who, under the War Measures Act, were dispossessed of their property, after having been displaced into central Canada, by orders in council which were subsequently revoked.
There has hardly been any reference, however, to the padlock law, to the Witnesses of Jehovah, or to the Roncarelli case, which dragged on for ten years. Yet, those were actions-and, to my mind, reprehensible ones -which were taken or perpetrated by a former government of the province of Quebec.
What about the anti-union and anti-labour activities of the former government of the province of Quebec? What about the strikes in Asbestos, Louiseville or Valleyfield-


Mr. Ricard:: That is not true.


Lionel Chevrier: -where there was a denial of the right to strike, the right of association, the right of picketing?
Will this bill be of any help in such cases? Will this bill prevent the recurrence of such wrongs? I ask hon. members opposite-


Mr. Pigeon:: What about internments during the war?


Lionel Chevrier: -to tell me under what provision this bill will prevent the recurrence of similar actions. There were references to the Japanese, to people of colour, but no one has said a single word-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: About internments?


Lionel Chevrier: -of what took place in the province of Ontario for 20 years under Regulation XVII? I was quite tempted to put the question to the member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) the other day, when he was

dealing with defence regulations, and ask him whether he knew, or had so much as heard of Regulation XVII, which was passed by a Conservative government in the province of Ontario, and for 20 years prohibited the teaching of French in our separate schools. No one has said a word about that. Yet those were cases of human rights being encroached upon; heads of families going to jail while mothers prevented inspectors from entering schools and stood guard against further denials of their own rights. At the beginning, no one rose-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Did you protest?


Mr. Habel:: Yes, we did; and not only did we protest but we struggled.


Lionel Chevrier: The hon. member-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Here, in the house?


Lionel Chevrier: I am coming now to the answer. The hon. member wants to know whether we protested this situation. The hon. member is too young to know what took place at that time. He has no inkling of the wrongs that were committed under that regulation, one that was reprehensible in all respects, and as a result of the attitude taken by many members who now call themselves Conservatives. Now, how can we be assured that, under this bill, such actions will not be repeated? I am simply putting the question. I will go no further except to say this: fortunately, there were in Canada, and in Ontario, right-minded Anglo-Canadians who condemned Regulation XVII and initiated movement-
(Text):


Mr. Graffley:: Divide and rule again. (Translation) :


Lionel Chevrier: -for the repeal of Regulation XVII. Well, my hon. friend from Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey), who is interrupting me now-
(Text):


William Heward Grafftey: Divide and rule again.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I hear a number of hon. members endeavouring to speak at once. I suggest that the hon. member who has the floor be allowed to continue without interruption.
(Translation):


Lionel Chevrier: The hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey) interrupts to say "divide and rule." I will reply to him: where was his party while Regulation XVII was being enacted in Ontario? Where was his former chief, the leader of the opposition, the Hon. Mr. Drew, who is now in London? Where was he, himself, at that time?
And you talk about human rights.
The Minister of Justice has left the house. I would like to ask him-


Mr. O'Hurley:: He has not left the house; he is right here.


Lionel Chevrier: I beg his pardon; I see that he is by the side of the Prime Minister.
I would like to ask him how it is that no one on the government side, including himself, had anything to say about the denial of the rights of minority within his own province?
There has been justifiable reference to coloured people, to the Japanese, but not a word about the French minority in Ontario.
Again I say, thanks to the justice and comprehension of men like William H. Moore, of men like Professor Sissons and many others-I could add of such men as Mr. Speaker himself-who understood reason and discountenanced any further denials of those rights. It was because of such people that the wrong was redressed.
Today, fortunately, conditions in the province of Ontario are altogether different. People have understood and have come to-


An hon. Member:: Thanks to Mr. Frost.


Lionel Chevrier: Not thanks to Mr. Frost; thanks to his predecessor, Mr. Ferguson who having recognized the inequity of the situation, repealed the infamous Regulation XVII.


Mr. Marlineau:: Would the hon. member
allow me a question?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I have no objection to answering questions, provided they do not curtail my speaking time. I have a 40-minute speech to deliver.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Could the hon. member tell us what was the political allegiance of Mr. Ferguson's government, which abolished that regulation?


Lionel Chevrier: That question does not
deserve any answer, because I have just given it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Ferguson was Conservative.


Lionel Chevrier: That is exactly what I just said. You did not understand what I said.


Paul Raymond Martineau: The hon. member has been flailing away at a Conservative government for enacting Regulation XVII. However, he has lacked the courage to say that it was a Conservative government which repealed it.


Lionel Chevrier: The parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister is obviously not very intelligent. It is likewise obvious that he is not too quick in the uptake, because after I had said that the Conservative government under Mr. Ferguson had imposed Regulation
Human Rights
XVII, I added that 20 years later the same premier repealed the regulation. However, the hon. member chose to break in for mere sake of doing so, because he did not like what I was saying.


Some hon. Members:: That is not true.


Lionel Chevrier: What particularly rankled him was my telling that it was a Conservative government that trampled the rights of our people in Ontario.
Mr. Speaker, I shall now direct my remarks to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton).
Experience has shown that in order to be effective, rights must be embodied in the constitution.
That is the view expressed by Louis Joseph Pigeon himself, in an article published in the Canadian Bar Review. I quote one sentence;
(Text):
Nothing is more firmly and definitely established by a long series of judicial decisions than that the legislative authority in Canada is divided between the "dominion and provincial parliaments", to use Viscount Sankey's words.
Has this division been kept in mind in drafting section 2 of the proposed act? It does not seem so. The human rights and fundamental freedoms which it enumerates obviously lie largely within the field of provincial jurisdiction; they include "property", one of the cardinal subjects of provincial legislative authority,
I think this distinguished jurist in the province of Quebec is as able to interpret the meaning of this bill as is the Minister of Justice. Those are his views, which do not agree with those of the Minister of Justice. Then there are also the views of Dr. Pauline Jewett of Carleton University, which appeared in The Canadian Forum. I should like to quote one paragraph, as follows;
. . . there is still another way (besides the amendment made in clause 3 of C-79) in which he might entrench his bill of rights against federal encroachment.
She was speaking on the subject of the Prime Minister's proposed bill of rights.
The British North America Act itself could be amended. A section could be added at the end of the Act providing that "notwithstanding anything in this act, it shall not be lawful for the parliament of Canada to abrogate, abridge or infringe or to authorize the abrogation, abridgement or infringement of any of the human rights and fundamental freedoms herein enumerated" and then listing the rights and freedoms so protected.
Then she goes on to make this statement: Legally the parliament of Canada itself could pass such an amendment. By virtue of the 1949 (No. 2) amendment-
That is the one I cited in French a moment ago.
-the parliament of Canada can amend the constitution except as regards provincial matters and subjects, constitutional guarantees regarding education and the use of the English or French

Human Rights
language, and the parliamentary annual session and five-year maximum term. The parliament of Canada could, therefore, write a bill of rights into the B.N.A. Act against federal encroachment.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Could not the parliament of Canada revoke, amend or repeal it? How is it more entrenched?


Lionel Chevrier: As the parliament of Canada could revoke, amend and repeal this bill of rights. There is no doubt about that.


Edmund Davie Fulton: My question is this. How is it any more entrenched in that way than it is in this way?


Lionel Chevrier: The Minister of Justice did not like interruptions when he was speaking and I wish he would allow me to carry on.


Mr. Browne (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Especially when the questions are embarrassing.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister would not hear my questions.


Lionel Chevrier: During the course of his remarks the Prime Minister was critical of government by order in council. The Prime Minister was critical of the former government because of the acts which took place then. I quote from page 5647 of Hansard of July 1 when, in referring to representations which had been made to him in a brief by a group of prominent citizens, he went on to say this:
Then it goes on to point out a few examples, and I know all of us regret those examples today. It says:
Under the sweeping powers conferred by the War Measures Act, the executive (or cabinet) in December, 1945, some months after the cessation of hostilities and without reference to parliament, passed three orders in council, which, if they had been enforced, would have exiled to Japan some 11,000 or more persons of Japanese origin, a large proportion of whom were Canadian born citizens.
Then the Prime Minister goes on:
When we talk about discrimination and its dangers we recall that the only offence committed by these people in 99 per cent of the cases, as it turned out subsequently, was their colour. The submission says:
It is true that some of those liable to be "expatriated" to Japan had signed a request to be sent to Japan. But it is also true that none of them had committed any offence against the law or had been guilty of any acts of disloyalty.
Well, Mr. Speaker, there were many members of parliament who now sit on the other side of the house who held that view. I believe it is safe to say that most of the members of parliament who came from that particular section of Canada, with perhaps one notable exception, held the view that these orders in council in some instances did not go far enough. I do not want to put on the record the words of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) or of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Green) or 
of several other speakers at that time, the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Pearkes) among them, but I have the record here.
I just refer to this in passing by saying that those who now complain about the acts of the former government should remember that when these orders in council were appealed to the privy council and declared valid, the government notwithstanding that repealed them. On the contrary, there seemed to be approbation; and I ask now, in what way are the rights of those citizens protected by this bill of rights? I could even ask the Prime Minister this question. I do not ask it in order to be embarrassing, but I have looked at the record-somewhat hastily, I must say, because of the hours of sitting- in order to find out what attitude he himself took during the course of those discussions. I have not been able to find any intervention on the right hon. gentleman's part disapproving of the views of those of his colleagues who sat with him on the opposition side of the house. If I am incorrect I am sure the Prime Minister will draw it to my attention when he replies.


John George Diefenbaker: You are incorrect.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Could the Prime Minister give a date?


Lionel Chevrier: The Prime Minister says I am incorrect. Well, I trust he will put on record the attitude he took then, because all the members from that particular province, as far as I could see, supported the orders in council.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Except one.


Lionel Chevrier: With one exception, as I said.


John George Diefenbaker: What particular province are you speaking of?


Lionel Chevrier: I am speaking of the province of British Columbia. I do not wish to labour the point unduly, and if I am wrong in what I have said then let the Prime Minister correct me.
The Prime Minister was critical of government by order in council by the former administration, but is he aware of the Georgian Bay air services case concerning which 1 interrupted him the other day, where an application was made by an air transport company, Georgian Bay Aircraft, which was denied by the air transport board because of reasons set out in the Aeronautics Act, namely that there was not the required public convenience and necessity proved. Then, a few weeks or less thereafter, an order in council was passed to circumvent the decision of the air transport board and a further application which was the same, or almost the same, was made a short time

later to the same board which had denied the previous application after a public hearing in a city of the province of Ontario. That application was granted, because of the order in council.
What about the Mitchell case? What about the case of the individual who was fired on three days' notice after 16 years service without an investigation having been made? What about the case of the man who was not only fired but was charged with having in his possession contraband liquor, though the Minister of National Revenue, or his department, found that such was not the case.


David James Walker: Stale fiction.


Lionel Chevrier: The hon. member says that is stale fiction.


David James Walker: Don't lose your temper-


Lionel Chevrier: I am not yielding.


David James Walker: Just stick to the facts.


Lionel Chevrier: I am not yielding, because I know the hon. member is not able to make a polite interjection. He does not understand what politeness is. But I will tell him that in that case not only was a man charged by a minister of the crown with a criminal offence, but he had no opportunity to defend himself in a court of law. Look it up and you will see. Under the immunity and protection of parliament, here was a man charged by a minister with an offence when he had committed no offence. Nevertheless, without investigation he was fired on three days' notice though his superior officers testified, to the fact that he was not only a sober but an industrious employee, and his superior gave him the best possible recommendation that could have been given in the circumstances.
I ask this. Where is the likelihood that cases such as this never will arise again because of the bill which is now before the house? The Prime Minister says that such things must not happen again. Where is there in this bill any clause which would prevent them from happening? All one has to do is to look at clause 2, and one can see that clause 2 enters far more into the provincial field than it does into the federal field. Clause 2 says:
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;
These are rights which in large part fall within the jurisdiction of provincial bodies, and that is why we take the position that in
Human Rights
order to deal with them effectively there should be the kind of amendment which Mr. St. Laurent brought down in 1949. And then it goes on:
(b) the right of the individual to protection of the law without discrimination by reason of race, national origin, colour, religion or sex.
This involves a great variety of provincial law and almost no federal law, except perhaps that in the field of federal housing and federal employment. When the Minister of Public Works was asked a question on the point some time ago by the hon. member for Essex East, the hon. gentleman shied away from it and said he was looking into the matter. He will probably be looking into the matter from now to the end of the session.


David James Walker: Oh, go back to your police court.


Lionel Chevrier: Then there is clause 3. The effect of this clause in dealing with administrative tribunals must inevitably lead to the influencing of provincial administrative law as well as federal administrative law. This cuts across the view of the government that this is only a federal matter.


Edmund Davie Fulton: How does my hon. friend support that argument?


Lionel Chevrier: No matter what you do it is impossible to separate these two. That is why we believe a proper bill of rights should contain a declaration approved of by the provinces and entrenched in the constitution.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Would my hon. friend permit a question. How does my hon. friend support the argument that this would have effect with regard to provincial administrative law?


Lionel Chevrier: If we look at the words-


Paul Joseph James Martin: There are no reservations at all in clause 2.


Lionel Chevrier: If you look at clause 2 it deals almost exclusively with provincial matters.


Edmund Davie Fulton: But my hon. friend was directing his attention to clause 3.


Lionel Chevrier: I was speaking about the administrative tribunals referred to in clause 3. Certainly there are provincial matters that come within this jurisdiction.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It is confined to the laws of the parliament of Canada.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, Mr. Speaker, who has the floor?


An hon. Member:: Certainly you haven't.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is obvious.

Human Rights


Lionel Chevrier: The Prime Minister is determined-


An hon. Member:: That is a very phony argument.


Lionel Chevrier: I thank my hon. friend for that interjection. Hon. members opposite think this is a phony argument. It is phony to their minds because it hurts.


Thomas Miller Bell: Explain it.


Lionel Chevrier: It is phony to their minds because they know that a former prime minister, when he decided to protect certain provincial rights entrenched their protection in the constitution. Look it up in the records for 1949. Why do hon. gentlemen opposite not do the same thing? Instead of doing that the Minister of Public Works rises in his place and insults everybody in the house.


David James Walker: You are incoherent because you are so ignorant.


Lionel Chevrier: I thank the Minister of Public Works for that remark. When I was interrupted, Mr. Speaker, I was about to say that the Prime Minister is determined on the bill of rights. It seems to me that instead of spending so much time discussing this bill we would have done far better to discuss the deterioration of the international situation, or the position in so far as our worsening domestic affairs are concerned, and particularly the economic ills which affect so many of our people, as was referred to by the hon. member for Essex East. It would have been more profitable to devote our time to a discussion of that nature instead of discussing a bill of rights to which in principle there is no objection and in respect of the terms of which there is already legislation on the statute books.
The Prime Minister concluded his opening remarks in introducing this measure with these words:
X am a Canadian, a free Canadian, free to speak without fear, free to worship God in my own way, free to stand for what I think right, free to oppose what I believe wrong, free to choose those who shall govern my country. This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold for myself and all mankind.
We, too, on this side of the house are free to stand for what we think is right. If we have all those freedoms, then why introduce a bill of rights?


John George Diefenbaker: May I ask the hon. member if he is going to vote for this bill?


Mr. Bourgei:: What a farce.


Lionel Chevrier: I am surprised that the Prime Minister would make such an intervention-


John George Diefenbaker: Not at all.
[Mr. Pickersgill.l


Lionel Chevrier: -and ask this time-honoured question that all people ask of someone who has the courage to rise and criticize legislation of this nature.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It was a cheap intervention.


Lionel Chevrier: Of course I am going to vote fort it. Of course we are all going to vote for it. But it is the responsibility and duty of the opposition to point out the weaknesses of this legislation. It is a principle that we are voting for, and I also hope we will be voting for the undertaking the Prime Minister gave that this bill will be sent to a joint committee of both houses so we can make it a better bill than it is at the present time. You can pass the best bill of rights in the world and circulate 40,000 copies of it, as the Minister of Public Works is going to do-


David James Walker: I will send you one, a framed copy.


Lionel Chevrier: -but if you do that and people are still suffering because of economic ills, they will not be excited about the bill of rights.
In conclusion I say that the place to make a bill of rights effective and operative is in the constitution. Failing that it will not be of much use to Canadians, let all alone to all mankind.


Mr. Douglas Jung (Vancouver Centre):: Mr. Speaker, we have heard during the course of this debate many moving and impassioned speeches. From my interpretation of these speeches, almost all speakers have supported the principle of Bill No. C-79, and I also wish to place on record my support of this proposed legislation.
Mr. Speaker, under any circumstance it is a very great honour to speak in this house. But in rising today to speak on Bill No. C-79, an act providing for the recognition and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms, I am experiencing again some of the emotions I felt on November 11, 1957, when I rose and spoke for the first time in this honourable house. I felt in my heart then, and I think without being presumptuous that it was a feeling shared on that day by all hon. members regardless of political affiliation, that history was being made on that occasion because for the first time a person of Asiatic origin spoke in this house as an elected representative. Proud though my colleagues must have been, Mr. Speaker, I do not think any hon. member really fully appreciated the emotions which I felt on that occasion. As I spoke that day I thought of my father and others like him who came to this country in 1900, unknown and alone,

fortified and sustained by no more than the realization that he had finally arrived in the country known to him in his native tongue as Gum Shan or Golden Mountain.
I thought of the fears he must have felt on coming to a strange country, and I wondered at his fortitude and courage. Why did he come to this country, in spite of the fact that he had to pay a head tax to enter it? Why did he come to this country when only 13 years earlier, in the small but growing city of Vancouver, 300 men and boys had marched on the Chinese shacks and routed 24 Chinese out of bed and, according to the story, these 24 Chinese were also kicked and beaten? Two of them were tied together by their pigtails and thrown into a nearby creek, and all had their meagre belongings burnt.
Why did my father come to Canada, Mr. Speaker? My father came because, in spite of these restrictions and in spite of these abuses, he had faith in Canada. He believed in Canada, and he gave all he had to this country. If I have done nothing else, Mr. Speaker, my election to parliament has justified the hopes and expectations of my father and mother and, indeed, those of all my countrymen, and I give thanks that they have lived to see this day. My election in 1957 was not a tribute to me, but rather a tribute to the leader of our party who is now the Prime Minister of Canada; because it was he who ignited the spark of Canadianism in the breasts of my fellow Canadians who elected me, not as a Chinese Canadian but rather as a Canadian of Chinese extraction.
I doubt whether my election would have been possible under any other leader of the Conservative party, because no one, either before or since, has been so closely identified with the protection of the rights of minorities and of the underprivileged as has the present Prime Minister. Because of his reputation and because of my affiliation with the Prime Minister through the Progressive Conservative party, the voters of Vancouver Centre in 1957 made amends for that earlier incident of 1887 by electing me as their representative. History and men's consciences move in strange ways; because that earlier incident which involved the Chinese immigrants occurred in exactly the same area which is now the constituency I have the honour to represent. As the story goes on to relate:
The old city hall where the vigilantes met, the bush through which they marched to Coal harbour, and Coal harbour itself, all lie within the boundaries of what is now the federal riding of Vancouver Centre, represented in parliament by Douglas Jung, son of a Cantonese merchant.
Human Rights
It may be a coincidence, Mr. Speaker, but the number of Chinese involved in that incident was 24, and this is the 24th parliament.
In the course of this debate we have heard impassioned pleas; we have listened to learned discourses on the constitutional aspects of this bill, and we have also been touched by some of the simple-and here I use the word "simple" in its most complimentary sense-and eloquent speeches. I cannot hope to approach the heights of speakers who have preceded me, but I do wish to interpret to some hon. members some of the feelings of a minority group which had peculiar problems springing from the fact that those in this minority group happened to have coloured skin.
Many of the difficulties of those in minority groups spring from the fact that because of the colour of their skin it is sometime difficult for them to get good accommodation and good jobs. Granted that this particular aspect of civil rights is reserved to the provincial governments, I nevertheless feel that a bill of rights passed by this parliament would focus the attention of those provinces which do not have appropriate legislation on the desirability of passing such laws.
If this proposed bill of rights did nothing else it would still be a tremendous step forward. But, Mr. Speaker, this proposed bill of rights goes further, in my opinion. For the first time we have a standard around which minorities can rally. For example, I have attended a number of naturalization ceremonies in Vancouver, and I have heard the presiding judge ask the applicants "What are your duties and obligations as a Canadian citizen?" Time and time again I have heard answers given by some who obviously did not have complete command of the English language, in the following terms: "Fight for my country. Pay taxes. Vote. Be a good man". These people who were desirous of becoming Canadian citizens had impressed upon them their duties and obligations, but nowhere were they advised of their rights and privileges.
As an experiment, Mr. Speaker, I conducted a poll among some of the numerous new Canadians of other than oriental background in my riding during the Easter recess. I asked 25 of them the following question: "What, in your opinion, are your rights and privileges?" Ten said "to vote"; 12 replied "to pay taxes"; three said they did not know. Can anyone blame them for their answers, Mr. Speaker? What could we produce or point to if we wanted to teach Canadians their fundamental rights and freedoms? Those of us who were born in this country take many things for granted, but is that any

Human Rights
excuse for not spelling out clearly our rights and privileges as Canadian citizens? And if we, as the majority, accept our rights and privileges without question, is that any justification for denying to the minority a clear proclamation of their rights?
Because we constitute the majority, Mr. Speaker, we have a double responsibility to ensure that the minority is protected. We, the majority, should be so secure in our knowledge of what constitute our rights and freedoms that we can afford to expose our beliefs to the most searching scrutiny and examination. And if, in the course of that scrutiny and examination, our beliefs are found wanting, we should be grateful that we live under a system of government and a way of life that will still allow us to make amends. And if we find legal difficulties ahead of us, is it not to our credit that we are prepared to grapple with those constitutional difficulties? Mankind may forget why Magna Carta was signed by a reluctant king, but mankind will always remember Magna Carta. So will it be with this bill of rights. Flowery and noble sounding words do not themselves provide safeguards; it is the intent behind the words that counts. Is there any more noble sounding phrase than that found in the United States declaration of independence, where it says in part:
We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
But do these words prevent racial discrimination in the United States, Mr. Speaker? Do these words by themselves guarantee rights and freedoms? In spite of its inherent weaknesses, does anyone suggest that the declaration of independence be repealed?


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member has more and he cannot conclude shortly, I am afraid I must interrupt him, since it is one o'clock.
At one o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2 p.m.
Douglas Jung: Mr. Speaker, prior to the adjournment for lunch I had pointed out to hon. members that in spite of the inherent weaknesses of the American declaration of independence, that noble and magnificent document, no one has yet suggested that the declaration of independence should be repealed. This proposed bill of rights will be

welcomed, certainly by those of my race, as a noble document. It is to the credit of this party that we have a leader who has the courage to introduce this legislation knowing full well the debate and criticism which it must bring.
But surely, Mr. Speaker, our actions will speak more clearly than any words. At a time when in other countries, and I think of countries within the commonwealth, measures are being taken which appear to further restrict the rights of minorities, this country is showing the way by declaring in clear language what constitute basic human fundamental rights and freedoms. This fact should be remembered by those in this country who try to give the impression that certain minority groups are being unfairly and needlessly prosecuted.
We have a Prime Minister who believes in equality for all. That is why, apart from my own position in the house, we have in the other place a representative of that great race who claim to be the original Canadians. Winston Churchill, in paying tribute to those who fought in North Africa during those dark days of world war II, said that forever after it would be enough for one of them to say, "I marched with the eighth army". Because the bill of rights has been introduced at this session, Mr. Speaker, I take the liberty of paraphrasing that right hon. gentleman and saying that I am proud to be a member of the 24th parliament of Canada.
(Translation):


Mr. J. P. Deschaleleis (Maisonneuve-Rose-moni):: Mr. Speaker, in his remarkable speech, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Pearson) stated that the official opposition was in favour of the principle of Bill C-79, but on the other hand, he submitted several important amendments that should be made to this bill.
First of all, he suggested that an elaborate study of this complex matter of human rights be made by a committee formed of all public bodies and other organizations which have already asked to be heard, anxious as they are to express their views on the subject.
Incidentally, I am surprised at the way this matter is being handled by a government which likes to boast of having developed a committee system of members of this house.
That same government might, right at the start of the session, have referred to a committee for consideration at least two of the major issues we have been dealing with during this session-that is, the Canadian bill of rights and the unemployment situation.

The Leader of the Opposition also suggested that the bill should include a section on the rights of individuals in the light of the War Measures Act, for everybody will realize that, if there ever is a time where individual rights and the freedoms of citizens are imperilled, it is in periods when the executive power is unlimited.
Third, the Leader of the Opposition suggested a provision limiting the power of the governor in council, even under the War Measures Act.
I do not know whether the Ottawa government will welcome those suggestions; if they are rejected, it would confirm the criticism already made, that the bill is merely declaratory and adds nothing to what we already had.
For my part, I fail to understand why the government should not have tried to obtain the views of the various provinces, first about the desirability of introducing a bill of rights at this time, and then about the various things that they consider as constituting the fundamental rights of Canadian citizens.
I fully agree-


William Heward Grafftey: Would the hon. member allow me a question?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Would my hon. friend be kind enough to wait until I am finished? I shall then gladly reply to his question.


William Heward Grafftey: Certainly.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: I fully agree with all those who believe that this important piece of legislation would acquire true significance only if it were incorporated in the Canadian constitution.
I believe that instead of introducing this legislation in 1958, only to withdraw it afterwards without giving any valid or acceptable reason, the government should have set up a commission that same year, and have the provinces represented on it. Then, in 1960, we would have been in a position to know whether the unanimity of the provinces is possible on that question. It is not too late to do so even now.
This would mean further delays, but it is the only way to reach the objectives I think we all have in mind in this house, namely the full recognition and protection, over the length and breadth of Canada, of human rights and fundamental freedoms.
That is the view taken by Canadian newspapers generally, and I mean French as well
Human Rights
as English speaking newspapers. In support of my statement, I should like to read into Hansard the following editorial from La Presse for February 19, 1960:
In the circumstances, it seems that, if Canada is to have a genuinely significant bill of rights affording the citizen real protection against possible abuses on the part of the state, we have to find a formula acceptable both to the provinces and to the federal government. Barring that, all we can hope for is a purely pious declaration that will give the individual a merely illusory protection for his fundamental freedoms.
Mr. Speaker, it does seem that, in the last few days, every dictionary in the parliamentary library has been requisitioned, probably in an attempt to warm up through this bill, the party's falling popularity which is fast dropping towards the freezing point.
Our friends on the government side seem to be trying to outdo one another in a quest for the biggest superlatives.
Even the Prime Minister shows evidence of an overpowering desire to place this bill, at any cost, incomplete as it is, in a niche where it certainly does not belong, and thus regild a rather tarnished and chipped escutcheon.
That is playing politics with a matter that should be above political parties. It is a dangerous method, and one which can be bitterly disappointing in its results, because to anyone who sincerely believes in the rights and liberties of man, this bill will, in practice, prove very ineffective and very disappointing.
Yet how direly Canada needs a bill and charter of human rights that would meet our requirements, and we do not have to realize this.
Everyone remembers how many times in recent years, our rights and freedoms were curtailed and trodden underfoot. Let me refer to only a few instances in the province of Quebec. Other hon. members might probably recall other instances in other provinces.
Who in the province of Quebec, would not recall the Guindon, Picard and Laporte bills? Those bills were passed for definite and partisan ends, and mostly with a retroactive effect.
Who does not remember odious bill 34, perhaps the most antidemocratic provision passed by any provincial legislature, a bill obviously aimed at disfranchising part of the electorate, by depriving the opposition of a right recognized by law and custom, the

Human Rights
right to be represented by a person of its choice when voters are listed in an urban riding.
I do not know that the Prime Minister, who was then sitting in the opposition, ever protested against that bill 34. Had he done so, his followers would have a much better chance now of setting up their leader as the champion of human rights.
Morever, let us see what article 2(a) of Bill C-79 says:
-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;
In this regard we all remember a proud riding in the province of Quebec where for many years voters were deprived of a badly needed bridge simply because they persisted in sending to the legislature a member of the opposition, in spite of a premier's threats.


Mr. Keays:: That is untrue.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Article (2d) says:
Freedom of speech;
We might also recall the threat made by a former provincial premier to a television commentator, of establishing a Quebec television network if that commentator were again heard over station CBF after his defeat at the polls.
Those are just a few instances showing how much we need an effective bill of rights, to protect man's basic freedoms.
When, especially yesterday, I listened to the impassioned oratory of hon. members opposite with regard to this rather incomplete bill, I would have placed much more value to their remarks if, at the time I have just referred to, hon. members of the Conservative party had not tacitly condoned those violations of human rights.
In everyday life, Mr. Speaker, custom and usage have conferred upon us many rights, privileges and essential freedoms that are not even mentioned in this bill. This was pointed out by the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) in his speech, on page 5731 of Hansard for July 5, 1960, in which he dealt with the economic rights of the Canadian citizen. In this regard, may I digress a moment and mention a fundamental right that is recognized by the United Nations' charter, one that will surely be made the subject of future legislation in this house, and I mean the right to work.

I am not prepared to agree that, in the present economic context we should guarantee the right to work to the head of the family, but I believe this is a matter which could have been considered in all its aspects by a committee where experts might have been called, because we must not forget that the civil code of the province of Quebec includes a section-I believe there is a similar section in the common law-which reads as follows:
By the mere fact of marriage, husband and wife contract the obligation to maintain and bring up their children.
Besides, the Criminal Code provides for the arrest, for failure to support, of any head of a family who fails in this obligation. Therefore, if it is true that, for any obligation that is imposed on a citizen, the state has a duty towards him, if it is true that the legislator has imposed on the Canadian citizen this obligation to feed and support his family, I believe it is only fair and legitimate that this same legislator give this man an opportunity to fulfil that obligation. But, with the present situation of unemployment in this country, I suggest that a bill of human rights is quite incomplete if it does not cover economic rights, as Bill C-79 fails to do.
I appreciate that the human rights outlined in this bill deal only with rights within federal jurisdiction, but the Prime Minister is aware, I hope, that in the province of Quebec, to mention only that one, this bill is already causing great concern. The general view is that, in spite of the Prime Minister's assurance, the bill strikes at the very root of civil law and that its interpretation by various courts might finally upset the whole civil code of the province.
I shall only deal briefly with this very important aspect of the matter, but this indicates clearly the ineffectiveness of a bill of rights, from a practical point of view, without the contribution and co-operation of the provinces. On page 5731 of Hansard for July 5, the hon. member for Essex East clearly emphasized the legal controversy that could follow upon the adoption of this bill when he said:
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 reply to that statement, the Prime Minister is trying to reassure us, but his assurances must be taken with caution, in view of the following paragraph which I quote from a speech delivered by the Prime Minister on May 16, 1947, as recorded on page 3145 of Hansard. Here is that extraordinary statement which casts a dark shadow on the possible scope, application and interpretation of a bill of rights coming within the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal government.
(Text):
I am going to read very slowly in order that every hon. member may feel the impact of this extraordinary statement by the Prime Minister on May 16, 1947:
Whether the federal authority has the power or not to pass legislation respecting civil liberties, its passage would strengthen the hand of the Minister of Justice in the matter of the disallowance of any statute which would deny freedom anywhere in our country.
(Translation):
What comments can we make upon that statement of the Prime Minister's, a statement which is, to say the least, rather extraordinary. I can think of at least three for the moment.
First, I would say this:
(Text):
Whether the federal authority has the power or not to pass legislation respecting civil liberties-
(Translation):
The Prime Minister himself has expressed doubt as to the constitutional validity of a bill of rights passed by the federal government alone.
Second, in this bill, the Prime Minister quite clearly reveals his hope of providing the Minister of Justice with a strong enough weapon to enable him to disallow any provincial statute, without exception, encroaching upon the freedom of any individual, even in the fields of property and civil rights, which everyone recognizes as coming exclusively under provincial jurisdiction.
Third, in his interpretation of this bill, the Prime Minister propounds the most strongly centralizing theory ever put forward in this house. Without further comment, I leave it to the Prime Minister to indicate whether in 1960, he still believes in the centralizing principles he so clearly outlined on May 16, 1947.
In the light of this incomplete bill that is being foisted upon the house, it is quite obvious that the provinces will immediately have to consider passing a bill of rights under their own jurisdiction, if only to protect themselves. Any legislature that treasures its civil liberties, its property law, will have
Human Rights
to pass a bill of rights in its own field, to protect itself against this statement made by the Prime Minister on May 16, 1947.
Where will such a situation lead to? Canada will have eleven bills of rights, and if we take the advice of the ministers of justice and of public works, we shall have posted in our schools, at the doors of our churches, in every public place, in every province, eleven bills different in nature, content and scope, and we shall have two bills wherever both the federal and the provincial jurisdictions are involved.
This, Mr. Speaker, is rather strange for a party that has been preaching national unity. In following this procedure, in forcing the provinces to pass their own bill of rights, I say this Bill C-79 will, in effect, be a factor of national disunity. And if ever an hon. member has attempted to explain our system of government to an immigrant arriving in Canada, a task which is not easy in any circumstances, imagine how much harder it will be to explain to this immigrant that we in Canada have 11 bills of rights, all different in legal content, and that in going from one province to another, one has the impression of moving into another country.
That, I think, is hardly the view people take of national unity. When the matter of citizenship came up, we placed in our statutes a citizenship act covering all of Canada, and I think it should be the same for this bill of rights. We could then, in co-operation with the provinces, pass a bill under which every Canadian citizen would enjoy undisputed privileges and rights throughout Canada.
To summarize, Mr. Speaker, we are offered, under the guise of lofty ideals, a bill that is narrow in scope, ineffective and subject to a dangerous interpretation.
On pondering the matter, it seems that we are still victims of a vision.
Mr. Speaker, in closing, may I say that there are many ways of protecting human rights and freedoms.
We, from Quebec, who so sorely needed a practical and efficient bill of rights, did not wait until July 1 to adopt one and-the Prime Minister will kindly excuse us-on June 22 last, the population of Quebec gave itself the finest bill of rights, the most practical and efficient one: a Liberal government.


William Heward Grafftey: Would the hon. member now allow me to ask him a question?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: With pleasure.

Human Rights


William Heward Grafftey: Does the hon. member agree with the doctrine put forward by the leader of his party and by the hon. member for Laurier, that we should proceed by way of amendment to our constitution which, today, would call for the intervention of the Westminster parliament in London, or does he believe that only the Canadian government is able to pass sound legislation to protect human rights?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: The hon. member for
Brome-Missisquoi is now again stating the erroneous theory advanced this morning by the Minister of Justice.
I shall reply to that question by saying that the theory set forth this morning by the Minister of Justice is childish, that he can try to explain it to the people of Canada, but that he would never dare expound it before the Canadian bar.


William Heward Grafftey: A supplementary question-[DOT]


Paul Raymond Martineau: Would the hon. member allow me a question? In his statement, the hon. member quoted as an example of violation of individual rights a Quebec election act. Does the hon. member remember the famous Dillon bill, passed by the Liberal administration, cancelling election recounts in the province of Quebec?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: It was the symbol of dictatorship.


Paul Raymond Martineau: In 1931?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, the question put to me by the hon. member in no way affects the principle-


Paul Raymond Martineau: Answer the question.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: I will answer your question. We Liberals have always advocated freedom for all individuals.


Mr. Martel:: Especially in Newfoundland.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: The Dillon bill-


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: And I am prepared to condemn any illegal legislation passed even by a Liberal administration. We are people who base our convictions on principles that remain unchanged.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: The famous Dillon bill. (Text):


Mr. E. L. Morris (Halifax):: Hon. members who were able to be in the chamber immediately before the distinguished speech of the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Jung) were treated to a most astonishing per-

formance by the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier). To uphold such a thesis will require that I endeavour, without notes, to expose the essence of his arguments and endeavour to discredit them. So I start off by flying a flag of truce before the loyal opposition and inviting their attention during the few minutes in which I shall be speaking, though I shall not be surprised if some hot-blooded Liberal evangelist gets up and hauls down the flag.
What was the essence of the hon. gentleman's case? It was to endeavour to inculcate in the minds of the members of this house the very worst sentiments in Canadian federalism, the things which would divide us and keep us apart; to introduce race, colour and sectionalism into a debate which is intended to solidify the unity of the Canadian people.
I am one of the class of '57. I have been here three years. The hon. member for Laurier is accustomed to say, if any one of us who has been here only three years rises in his place to make a cogent intervention, "Oh, you have only been here for three years", as though longevity were the only source of honest feeling about Canada. This happened only this morning. One of the hon. members from Quebec made an interjection and the hon. member for Laurier wheeled on him and said in effect "You are too young to know anything about Canada; you have only been here a few years".


John Whitney Pickersgill: He said no such thing.


Edmund Leverett Morris: I am sorry, but I cannot hear the inaudible imperfections of the hon. gentleman.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I just said the hon. member for Laurier said no such thing.


M. Morris:: Well, unless the Hansard record is changed we shall all be able to see the truth. That has happened before.
Beyond the front steps of this building the question of the bill of rights is not essentially a legalistic or even a constitutional argument, and I speak from three small years of wisdom with regard to this. That is our duty here in this chamber, to preserve the legalities and the constitutionality of the legislation. Listen to the heartbeat of the people in the galleries or beyond the front steps of this building, and hon. members will learn that this is a spiritual issue; and the thing which annoys the Liberal opposition is that they did not themselves introduce a measure of this kind.

So we have heard this morning appeals to the very things which we have barely survived in Canada; separate schools, the teaching of languages in schools, appeals to race, appeals to sectionalism and even an appeal to the black peoples. As one who has one of every four coloured people in Canada among his constituents, may I ask what did the Liberal party do about the rights of those people? I will tell you. Once every four years a two dollar bill and a pint bottle of liquor; those were the rights of the black people.


An hon. Member:: Shame.


Edmund Leverett Morris: These are bitter words. The shame is not mine. Outside in the lobby some of my friends on this side of the house tell me not to become emotional. Well, there are things in this country about which one should become emotional. One of them is the subject of fundamental human rights.
At a time in history when the area of freedom is closing in all over the world, we here in the House of Commons of Canada have a chance to say to the world that not only do we have these rights, but we will take our stake and drive it into the ground and declare that we shall always preserve these rights.
Instead of that, what do we hear? We hear an appeal to drive us apart, to separate Quebec from the rest of Canada, to separate the races in Canada, to separate even black people from white people in Canada. I want no part of it. I did not come here three years ago to preside over the break-up of Canada. I say that outside this building, outside in the bountiful land of Canada, this is a matter of the spirit. We have taken a step in this bill of rights which will portray us to the world, if we let it and if we do not divide ourselves, as a nation which means to keep itself free.
If that is the essence of the bill of rights, then let the hon. member for Laurier, who feels so strongly about this bill, be at least consistent and vote against it. When the Prime Minister asked the hon. gentleman how he would vote, his colleague the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate said that was a cheap interjection. Voting is not a cheap interjection. I say to the hon. member for Laurier, if you feel that strongly about the bill, then vote against it. That is what we are here to do, to vote for or against this bill. If his feeling is so strong, then let the hon. member vote against it, and at least rectify through consistency some of the respect which the hon. gentleman lost here today.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I have not very many words for the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Human Rights
Morris) who happily is one of those who provides his own antidote as he goes along. But I do think I should remind those hon. members who listen to speeches instead of having them written for them that the hon. member for Laurier did none of the things the hon. gentleman suggested he did. What the hon. member for Laurier did was to suggest that the best kind of bill of rights we could have in this country would be a bill of rights that applied to everybody in Canada, in all jurisdictions in the country.
In saying that the hon. member for Laurier was saying precisely what the Prime Minister said in 1948, as I intend to show a little later on. The hon. member for Laurier also indicated that we realize, as everyone realizes, that it may not be too easy to get the necessary agreement with other jurisdictions, to get what would be the best; and that if we cannot get what would be the best, and if the government will not do what we think would be the second best, that at any rate we will take what little is left.
The hon. member for Halifax put this question to the hon. member for Laurier. "If the hon. gentleman feels so strongly about the bill why does he not vote against it?" I did not hear anything in what the hon. member for Laurier said that suggested he felt very strongly about this bill. I should be very surprised if the hon. member or anyone else did, because it is impossible to feel very strongly about this anaemic bill.
In order to save the Prime Minister asking once again that usual cheap question that he asks when people debate-how are you going to vote?-I hasten to say that of course I am going to vote for the bill, in exactly the spirit in which Oliver Twist took the first bowl of thin gruel and in no other spirit. It is thin gruel, but there is nothing wrong with it. It is a harmless thing. It cannot do us any real injury. The only objection is that it is so very different from the advertisements that in fact it is going to be very disappointing to many of those who thought it was going to mean a great deal more than when it appeared in its first form in 1958 and then in its improved version 20 months later, with improvements that one has almost to use a microscope to find. One wonders why the 20 months' delay.
Since the Minister of Justice treated us to a rather curious rhetorical display earlier today, it seems to me that I should comment upon it. I think the Prime Minister is right in suggesting, as I just heard him do, that the Minister of Justice be sent for. I would rather have the minister hear my remarks.

Human Rights


John George Diefenbaker: I am sure the minister would want to be amused. That is why I asked someone to invite him to be present.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I quite agree. I would rather have the Minister of Justice present to hear what I have to say, because what I am going to say-


An hon. Member:: You have not said anything yet.


John Whitney Pickersgill: is that the Minister of Justice completely and utterly repudiated the attitude taken on this subject by the Prime Minister in 1948.


Mr. Tasse:: Another twisted mind.


John Whitney Pickersgill: In 1948 the present Prime Minister made a speech, which began on April 9 and was concluded on April 12, with regard to a motion respecting the United Nations declaration of human rights. In that speech the hon. gentleman said some remarkable things, some of which I think should be put on the record because the Prime Minister ought to tell us why he has so profoundly changed his mind about these things.
The Prime Minister said, for example, as reported at page 2846 of Hansard:
Here we are a sovereign nation among the nations of the world and promising as a signatory of the United Nations to uphold fundamental freedoms as one of the principal prerequisites for the success of the United Nations; yet the minister's attitude-
That was the then minister of justice, Mr. Ilsley. I continue:
-tonight raises a doubt whether Canada even internationally can do that which all the nations of the United Nations undertook to do when the charter was accepted.
The Prime Minister went on to say:
We were circumvented last year in the committee by the constitutional issue being raised on every possible occasion-
Incidentally, I thought it might be of interest to see how much circumvention was done in that committee. I had the record looked up, and I find that the present Prime Minister, who was a member of the committee in 1947, was present twice and absent six times. I thought in view of the Prime Minister's own researches in this field he might like to have that information. I continue:
-and the minister tonight reiterated the summation of the answers given by the attorneys general of the provinces and by the deans of the law schools, apparently believing that those answers, coupled with the evidence given before the committee, would once and for all end in this country the crusade for a national bill of rights and would determine as well Canada's position as being unable to discharge her international responsibilities.
The committee, if it is to meet as it did last year-
IMr. Pickersgill.]
I may say it did meet on a number of occasions; on April 23, May 4, May 13, May 14, May 19, May 21, June 2, June 10, June 15, June 17, June 21 and June 23, and the Prime Minister was present on only three occasions.


Mr. Parizeau:: Oh, we have heard you before.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I continue.
The committee, if it is to meet as it did last year, will merely be shadow-boxing-
Perhaps that is why the hon. gentleman did not attend. I continue:
-going through motions, postponing and procrastinating, with the government forever hiding behind the constitutional position.
The constitutional position that was taken at that time, that parliament did not have jurisdiction over those matters that, under the constitution were assigned to the provinces, is precisely the position that is being taken today by the present government.


John George Diefenbaker: Not at all.


John Whitney Pickersgill: This is the position that the Prime Minister denounced so wholeheartedly such a short time ago as 1948. Then when the hon. gentleman resumed his speech on April 12 he went on to indicate what he thought ought to be done about this problem by the parliament of Canada. It is not quite along the same line that the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont (Mr. Deschatelets) reported was taken in 1947, but here it is at page 2856 of Hansard of April 12, 1948. The Prime Minister said:
In the event that one's fundamental freedoms have been interfered with, he should have the right of recourse. That is why I ask that there be an amendment to the Supreme Court of Canada act to the end that anyone in any province in Canada whose fundamental freedoms are interfered with shall have the right of determination of his rights before the Supreme Court of Canada.
There is nothing there about federal jurisdiction, not a word.
-anyone in any province in Canada whose fundamental freedoms are interfered with shall have the right of determination of his rights before the Supreme Court of Canada.
Then he went on to refer to Mr. Ilsley, as follows:
My right hon. friend referred to the constitutional division between the provinces and the dominion. I should like to refer to one case which is the only one which has been before the Supreme Court of Canada in reference to the question of fundamental freedoms. There are two points of view. Some say that the right of the provinces to abrogate and interfere with the fundamental freedoms is inherent in the British North America Act, although the preamble to that act states that our constitution shall be similar to that of the United Kingdom. Those who contend that these rights rest in the provinces aver that we in this country must be a balkanized Canada-

I think I ought to repeat those words, because they are different from what we hear from the treasury benches in this thin gruel which we are being offered now:
Those who contend that these rights rest in the provinces aver that we in this country must be a balkanized Canada whereby an individual may enjoy certain fundamental rights in one province while in another they may be denied. It is that question of legislative jurisdiction that I am asking the government of this country to submit to the supreme court. If it is the law, then it denies to the individual that Canadian citizenship which should be the result of the measure introduced by the Prime Minister in 1944. To say that in one part of Canada a Canadian may enjoy freedom of religion and of speech and of association, all of those great and abiding freedoms, and that in another province a Canadian may not enjoy them, is a denial of the possibility that we shall ever build a united Canada on the basis of equality of the individual before the law in all parts of the country.
Then a little further along on the next page 

I think it would be very interesting to have this whole speech put on the record. My time is limited and I cannot do that, but I should like to quote this part:
With those who say that the dominion parliament has no power to pass a bill of rights I do not agree-
This is the Prime Minister speaking in 1948. I continue:
-but let us accept that for a moment. The first thing, then, that the parliament should do is to equalize the rights of Canadians everywhere in Canada, so that they can go to the foot of the throne, to the Supreme Court of Canada and, if they will, to the privy council, when their rights have been abrogated.
In other words, 10 years ago the Liberal government of that day was being condemned because it would not override the constitution, it would not pass centralizing legislation, it would not pass legislation whether or not it was ultra vires of the parliament of Canada.


John George Diefenbaker: That is a complete misinterpretation.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The Prime Minister can reinterpret it in his own time, which is unlimited, instead of wasting my time.


John George Diefenbaker: I am just clearing up the inaccuracies of the law school student.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If the Prime Minister were not exceedingly sensitive about this he would not be interrupting me, because we in this house know something about the right hon. gentleman's technique. He does not want the public to be reminded that 10 years ago he was saying there should be a real bill of rights which would guarantee the rights of all Canadians against any encroachment from any authority in Canada; because that was the position he was taking there, if his words meant anything, and I think for once they were clearer and less ambiguous than they
Human Rights
usually are. If they did not mean anything, if they were just hot air, then I will leave the Prime Minister to say that for himself in his own time, because I think they did mean something. I was taking them at their face value; I was giving the Prime Minister credit for sincerity at that time, if not for as much constitutional knowledge as one in his position should have.
I come next, sir, to the question-


Paul Raymond Martineau: What is the next act in the comedy?


John Whitney Pickersgill: -of the limited sphere which the government has now laid out for itself in this legislation, that is to say legislation that is clearly and exclusively within the jurisdiction of this parliament, without any question, to pass; and I do not doubt that this bill is clearly within our jurisdiction to pass. When we come to that field I then say to myself, what does this bill really do? It is very clear what it does-


Joseph Aimé Roger Parizeau: It guarantees freedom of speech.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not think my freedom of speech has ever been in any danger except from certain hon. members who interrupt speeches in this house. It certainly has never been in any danger because of any lack of a bill of rights in this country. But what does this bill do? What does it do in clause 2? It says:
It is hereby recognized and declared that in Canada there have always existed-
-certain rights; that is all it does. In any substantive way that is absolutely all it does. It does not confer upon us one right that we do not have right now; it repeats that we have rights. One recalls in the history of medieval parliaments in England that it was customary to reiterate in statutes in every generation, or sometimes oftener than that, laws that were not enforced; but I say it can do no harm to reiterate that we have those rights which have always existed, as the Prime Minister's bill says. They have always existed, but this is not any additional guarantee that they will go on existing any more than Magna Carta or the other great charters of our liberties, which are part of the laws of Canada and which, it seems to me, ought to be cited in this bill as being part of the law of Canada. There is no doubt about that.
I know, sir, it is not parliamentary to attribute motives, but it is hard to escape the feeling that an attempt is being made in this bill to create the impression that something new is being brought in, something that did not exist before; but the draftsmen have not quite dared to go that

Human Rights
far. All they have said is that we still have the rights we always have had, and we will go on having them when the bill is passed.
As I say, I am certainly not going to vote against continuing to have those rights. I want to have them; they are very precious rights, but we are not getting them from the Diefenbaker government; we are not getting them from this Conservative-dominated parliament. We have had those rights ever since 1867. We have had them because of the struggle for them that took place in colonial times, and they have been a part of our constitution ever since.
In his speech the other day-and he has done this on other occasions-the Prime Minister cited a few alleged infringements of rights in the federal field.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Alleged?


John Whitney Pickersgill: He referred particularly, of course, to the orders in council of 1945 relating to certain persons in Canada, some of them citizens, some of them not, of Japanese origin. The Prime Minister said at page 5647 of Hansard of July 1:
When we talk about discrimination and its dangers we recall that the only offence committed by these people in 99 per cent of the cases, as it turned out subsequently, was their colour.
Well, I am not accusing the Prime Minister of deliberate misrepresentation but that is, of course, a total misrepresentation of the real facts of that case. There was nothing in this order in council about anybody's colour; there was nothing in this order in council about anything except the fact that those persons were persons of the Japanese race whose country had been at war with ours and up until a few months before those orders in council were passed was still at war with us; in fact it was in a technical state of war even at that time because there had been no peace treaty, there had been only an armistice. Similar orders restricting the liberties of many other Canadians were made, as the Prime Minister well knows, under the defence of Canada regulations during the war. Whether all these things were necessary, whether or not they should have been done, is a question about which there can be two views. I must say I would not defend everything that was done by that government at that time, though it was no part of my responsibilities in those days. There are members of this house, not all on one side either, who know what my private views were even at that time.


John George Diefenbaker: What was the hon. gentleman's position at that time?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I was third secretary in the Department of External Affairs at that

time, not a very exalted position, and I was on loan in the prime minister's office. That was my position. As I have said to the Prime Minister, I had no responsibility for this matter any more than the Leader of the Opposition had any responsibility for it, although at that time he occupied a very exalted position in the public service of Canada. The decisions in these matters were made by the government of that day. I would remind the Prime Minister that one of the most prominent and influential members of the government of that day, now a member of the other place, was Hon. C. G. Power, than whom there has been no greater defender of human liberty in this country or this parliament.


William Heward Grafftey: And the principles of Liberalism.


John George Diefenbaker: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question? Was Mr. Power a member of the government when that order in council was passed?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the Prime Minister identify the order in council to which he is referring?


John George Diefenbaker: The order in council in connection with the Japanese.


John Whitney Pickersgill: There were many orders in council in connection with the Japanese.


John George Diefenbaker: The order in council in connection with the deportation of the Japanese, to which the hon. member has been making reference. I ask him whether Hon. C. G. Power was a member of the government of that time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If the Prime Minister is referring to the last order in council-


John George Diefenbaker: No; the first one, deporting the Japanese.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I might refresh the Prime Minister's memory. The Prime Minister, of course, has not gone back far enough.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Hon. members may laugh, but the first order in council was passed early in 1942. In fact the very first one was passed in 1941, and there was a whole series of orders in council, the most objectionable in my opinion being those which removed the Japanese from the coast, which took their property from them and put it up for sale; and Hon. C. G. Power was a member of the government that did all these things.


John George Diefenbaker: Will the hon. gentleman-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am speaking now.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, Oliver Twist.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The Minister of Justice
would not do me the courtesy of letting me ask a question this morning.


John George Diefenbaker: I will straighten it out. You were a year out.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister, of course, is taking advantage of his great prestige in the house to intervene in these matters and is talking about straightening things out. The plain fact is, of course, that everybody knows that Mr. Power resigned from the government in 1944. The particular order in council to which the Prime Minister is now referring was passed after the war, but that order in council was simply one step in a series of events.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, no.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The Prime Minister says "Oh, no", but the facts are these. The facts are that the first step was to take every person of the Japanese race, whether or not he was a citizen, who was in the coastal region of British Columbia, away from that area and move him into the interior, and take all his fixed property away from him. These things were done, and I cannot really say that they were any less an invasion of rights than the things that were permitted to be done under the order in council of 1945. They are all things that every person with any respect for rights is sorry ever had to happen.
But I would also remind you, Mr. Speaker, that there was a gentleman in this parliament, the only one I can remember, who came from British Columbia, and who had the courage to get up in this house and say that these things were wrong when it was very unpopular to do so. That gentleman did not belong to my party and he did not belong to the Prime Minister's party. I refer to Mr. Angus Maclnnis. I have never forgotten him. I admired him then for that stand and I am glad to say that I admire him today.
There was another member of parliament in that house, the right hon. gentleman who is now the Prime Minister of Canada. I may be wrong, but I have had a careful search made of Hansard and I cannot find that anywhere between the time of Pearl Harbour in 1941 and the end of hostilities a single word was uttered by the right hon. gentleman in objection to what had been done about the Japanese. If I am wrong I wish the Prime Minister would give me the page reference right now so I can put the record straight.


John George Diefenbaker: You read Hansard with
about as much care as you showed in the statement you made about Mr. Power.
Human Rights


John Whitney Pickersgill: I ask the Prime Minister directly, does he know of any statement he made between the date of Pearl Harbour and the end of hostilities with Japan in protest against what was done about the Japanese?


David James Walker: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I know that the Prime Minister-


David James Walker: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, could we return to the bill of rights?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am dealing with a subject that the Prime Minister himself introduced into this debate, and I do not need any assistance from the Minister of Public Works. I say, of course, that when we began to be ashamed of some of the things we had done during the war, when it became popular, the Prime Minister was the first one on the bandwagon; but in the days when it really mattered the only person whose voice I ever heard was Angus Maclnnis. If I am wrong I will be glad to be corrected. I made a very careful search and asked someone else to double check. If the Prime Minister can find anything he said in parliament during the years of war in protest against this conduct I would be very pleased to see it. I would be very pleased to be told about it right now.


John George Diefenbaker: Does the hon. member say that December, 1945, was in the days of war?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No. I do not. I said until the end of hostilities, when the going was tough. That is what I said and that is what I repeat, when the going was tough, when to stand up and be counted was not to make oneself popular. That is what I am talking about. I just want to make that quite clear to the Prime Minister. There is one member on the other side of the house, the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdon-nell), who, though he was only a private citizen in those days, did not mind being unpopular and standing up to be counted, but unhappily there were not too many of them anywhere in this country.
That is why I think by far the most important contribution that has been made to this debate is the contribution that was made by the Leader of the Opposition, who recommended that we should put into this bill of rights something that would put some meaning into it, so it would cover circumstances similar to those that were involved, at the only time in our history so far, any serious invasion or attempted invasion by parliament of human rights has taken place. I am not talking about what some provinces

Human Rights
have done. I am talking about this parliament. In peacetime this parliament has never made any really serious invasion of any fundamental human rights, but there were things done in wartime that many of us wish had never been done. There were other things that many of us feel perhaps had to be done in wartime.
I want to repeat the proposals made by the Leader of the Opposition for putting something into this bill which would give it some content and some meaning, which would put some real oats into it and make it into real porridge instead of thin gruel. Particularly because the Prime Minister himself raised the point about these orders in council that deprived persons of their citizenship, and which the privy council said were legal under the War Measures Act, let us make it illegal to do so again. Let us make sure that no government, Liberal, Conservative or any other, in the terrible circumstances of war will ever have the power to do so again.
That is the thing that matters. If this was the greatest invasion of human rights in this country, and I think it probably was, then let us prevent it happening again. Let us put into the bill a provision that the governor in council under the War Measures Act may not take away anybody's citizenship for any reason whatever. Let us put into this bill of rights that, under the War Measures Act, the governor in council may not for any reason whatever exile any person from Canada, citizen or otherwise. Let us also put into this bill a provision that no person may be detained without a trial for longer than- well, I do not think the precise period matters very much, so long as it is a certain period -say 60 days or 90 days or whatever might be necessary, in the light of a careful study of the experience of the last war, unless the minister of justice makes a prima facie case before a superior court judge.
As a matter of fact, when my right hon. friend, Mr. St. Laurent, became minister of justice in 1941 he did, in fact, as the Prime Minister very well knows, apply that provision to all those persons who were detained. A great many of them were released from detention in the succeeding years. A case had to be made for all of them and it took a considerable time, because there was quite an accumulation. In the light of that experience it should not be difficult to decide upon a period of time, not too long, during which detention could take place without, in fact, the government having to make its case before a judge. But after that the person could not be detained any longer unless a case had been made before a superior court judge.
I should like to be able to say, sir, and I am sure the hon. member for Greenwood, the

Leader of the Opposition and all liberal-minded persons would like to be able to say, that the government should not be able to detain anyone for any length of time, even in time of war, without a proper hearing before a court. I do not believe, in the light of the experience not just of this country but of other countries that cherish liberty just as much as we do, that this would be a realistic approach. My hon. friend, the Leader of the Opposition therefore, did not propose it, but he proposed instead what seems to us to be about the best middle course that is possible.
However, with respect to the other two matters, with respect to exiling persons or with respect to depriving them of their citizenship, surely there is no need to have that power at all in peace or in war. The Minister of Justice made a very shallow argument- I use his own adjective-about the fact that under the citizenship act as it was originally passed by this parliament there were several provisions under which persons, in specific cases which had been proven, could have their citizenship revoked. The minister said all of these except one had been removed from the act. This does not happen to be the fact. There are only two or three reasons for the deprivation of citizenship by anyone, minister or anyone else, under the law at the present time. I should like to see them all removed. In fact I introduced a bill two years ago which was talked out by hon. members opposite, to make Canadian citizenship inviolable in peacetime. I should like to see that a part of this bill of rights.
I do not care whether or not the hon. member for Essex East, when he piloted the citizenship legislation through in 1947, put those provisions in it, and which are in the laws of many other countries. The hon. member for Essex East, and every Liberal, is capable of learning from experience and of changing his mind.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Whitney Pickersgill: This is something upon which we have changed our minds. What is more, of course, as the hon. member for Essex East reminds me, the Canadian Citizenship Act was a monument to the Mackenzie King government and to the hon. member for Essex East. An improvement in the act was made by the hon. lady when she introduced her bill, and we said so at the time. We could not understand why she did not go the whole way, and when we get back into office we intend to go the whole way unless that has been done in the meantime by this government which professes to have such a regard for our rights, our liberties and our citizenship. If they will do it I will applaud

them. The Prime Minister need have no doubt how I will vote on the measure; I shall vote for it.
I should like to go back very briefly, because I believe I have very few minutes left, to the arguments of the Minister of Justice and the arguments of my hon. friend from Laurier. Our position, it seems to me, is very simple and very clear. We believe the best course the government could take would have been to consult the provincial governments to see if it might not have been possible to agree upon an amendment to the constitution which would have safeguarded human rights and fundamental freedoms against all jurisdictions by agreement; not by centralization, not by force, not by a kind of usurpation of jurisdiction at which the Prime Minister seemed to be hinting in 1947. I readily admit it might not have been possible to succeed. I think the prospects have been vastly improved in the last couple of weeks. We have one or two Liberal governments with which it would be easier to deal than some of the governments they replaced, but it might still be a very difficult thing to do.
However, we might be able to do both things at once. We might be able, at the same time, to agree on a national bill of rights for all Canadians in all jurisdictions and on a method to amend our constitution here at home. We might be able to put it all in a package, and that would be the ideal. I think this ought to be the ideal of everybody in the house. Perhaps we could not realize it, but if we could get agreement on the bill of rights what would be wrong with going to Westminster and having it put into the British North America Act?
This is what my right hon. friend Mr. St. Laurent did in 1949, when he put the use of the French language beyond peradventure by a constitutional amendment and made the other amendments to which my hon. friend from Laurier referred. This is what happened at that time. If you can go to Westminster to change the status of county court judges, which status has been regarded as the prerogative of this parliament since 1867, why would it be such a terrible thing to go to Westminster to maintain the freedoms and fundamental rights of all Canadians? The argument of the Minister of Justice is really so tawdry that it is hardly worthy of reply.
If that were not possible, if indeed this second best method of the Prime Minister's is all we can hope for, surely at least advantage could have been taken of the amendment to the British North America Act of 1949, and we could have had this bill as an act to amend the British North America
Human Rights
Act with the bill of rights as the subtitle. I admit that under the law there would have been no difference whatever; it would have been precisely the same thing. However, the mere fact of calling it an amendment to the British North America Act, the mere act of recognizing it for what it ought to be, a part of our fundamental constitution, would, as my hon. friend from Essex East said in an intervention this morning, have given it dignity, would have given it added respect. This is not a very great point, but it is a point.
If the government insist upon continuing in the way they are going on, then I do not see that it will do any harm and it may do a very small amount of good to have once more reiterated these historic British freedoms which have never been questioned in peacetime since 1867 so far as this parliament is concerned, whatever may unfortunately have happened on a few occasions in some legislatures.
In conclusion may I say that I have sought to give to this subject the importance it deserves, and I urge the Prime Minister very strongly to give the utmost consideration to those suggestions which were put forward by my hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition, which would give to this bill more content than it now has.


Mr. J. S. Speakman (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, I feel rather humble in rising to speak in the debate on Bill No. C-79, an act for the recognition and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms, particularly after listening on Monday and Tuesday of this week to the heights and then again the depths of oratory. Despite the many arguments which have been advanced by hon. members of the opposition-that such a bill does not go far enough in its protection of these rights; that this bill is not required; that the present act, as the hon. member who just preceded me said, is thin gruel-it is my firm belief that as long as the present government is in office and is headed by the right hon. gentleman who is our Prime Minister, the rights of the individual will be fully protected, as stated in clause 2 of the bill. '
I had intended, Mr. Speaker, to make reference to what happened during and after the war to Canadians of Japanese origin, but a considerable amount has been said on that subject and it will not be necessary for me to say more except that in my lifetime Canadians have fought and died in two world wars for the protection of the rights and the freedoms of the individual. I am proud to say that I myself served for 12 years in His Majesty's and Her Majesty's forces for the protection of those rights. I would feel that

Human Rights
such service had been in vain for my children and their children were it not for this protection we are now going to get as a result of this bill.
I should like to say that one of my comrades in the last war was the son of a Japanese Canadian, who was born in Canada, whose father had come to Canada and worked for the privilege of Canadian citizenship. I can well recall the shock, amazement and hurt of that comrade of mine when his people were deprived of everything they had given their lifetime to acquire, and were shoved away without even the bare necessities of life.
To many people in many lands Canada stands out as a beacon of hope in their search for a home where freedom is the rule and is protected. A further assurance of this freedom will be given by this bill. In the second latest issue of the Alberta Wheat Pool Budget there appeared a short poem which I should like to read into the record. It makes a plea for that brotherhood which is enjoyed in Canada by Canadians of many origins. The poem reads as follows: Plea for Brotherhood The same skies arch above us.
The peoples of all the earth;
The same dear Father loves us,
Though varied our station and birth;
Oh, teach us, dear Heavenly Father,
That together we stand or fall,
That we but live in separate rooms-
The same roof covers all.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that I myself am a first generation Canadian. My father was born in Dundee, Scotland and my mother in London, England. They came to Canada as young people. I consider myself to be wholly Canadian. I should like to repeat the pledge made by the Prime Minister as it appears at page 5649 of Hansard of July 1:
X am a Canadian, a free Canadian, free to speak without fear, free to worship God in my own way, free to stand for what I think right, free to oppose what I believe wrong, free to choose those who shall govern my country. This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold for myself and all mankind.
I express the hope that such a pledge will be taken by all Canadians now and in the future.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: As
an ordinary layman in legal matters, Mr. Speaker, I shall not attempt to compete with the Minister of Justice, the hon. member for Laurier or the hon. member for Essex East in their ability to argue in legal terms in connection with this legislation; or in their ability, as far as the Minister of Justice is concerned, to prove that grey is white and, as to the other hon. gentlemen, that white is grey, on

occasion. However, I arrived a few minutes before the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate concluded his extremely interesting remarks. I was interested that he made reference, if I heard him correctly, to the fact that there had never been an occasion in peacetime in Canada when human rights and fundamental freedoms were transgressed.


John Whitney Pickersgill: In any fundamental sense by parliament. I said I was not referring to the provinces.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am glad to hear the hon. gentleman say "by parliament". I misheard him, because I was going to correct him so far as Newfoundland is concerned. I thought I had him that time but he has escaped my criticism. However, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to note how quickly the hon. gentleman rose to explain exactly what he said and what he meant.
We have spent over three days on a somewhat comfortable Cook's tour on the balmy waters of the principles of human rights and fundamental freedoms, with a few ripples now and then, I must admit. Some good speeches have been made on this subject. There is no doubt about the fact that all hon. members in this house are interested in the question of human rights and fundamental freedoms, although there are strong differences of opinion as to the efficacy of the legislation that has been presented to the house by the Prime Minister.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, I am getting to be an old man and inclined to muse.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: When one on in years sits in his seat and listens to the debate it naturally prompts recollections of one's reading of history and recollections and memories of one's personal experiences. When I was listening to the Prime Minister's remarks in moving second reading of this bill I could not help but think of the history of Magna Carta in 1215, the bill of rights in 1689, the British North America Act in 1867, the Statute of Westminster in 1931, the declaration of the prime ministers of the commonwealth in 1944 and the declaration of human rights and fundamental freedoms made by the United Nations just a few years ago.
When we discuss this subject-that is those who are particularly interested in it-I think we must admit that while there has always been a core of people concerned with the preservation and extension of human rights and fundamental freedoms, unfortunately there are too many people who accept those rights and freedoms without any sense of responsibility for maintaining them or their improvement. However, I am sure we all

realize that Canadian civilization draws its ideas on this extremely important question primarily from Great Britain and France and also to a lesser extent from a number of other countries.
When the Prime Minister was speaking, thinking in terms of history I could not help recalling my reading of the experiences of the Topuddle martyrs, of Keir Hardie's life, of the contributions that Mr. Campbell Ban-nerman and Mr. Lloyd George, former prime ministers of Great Britain, made to this question in the House of Commons in London and in British public life, and also some well-known, important Tories. I would not for one moment suggest that throughout the years members of one party had been the only persons to defend human rights and fundamental freedoms.
I would not for a moment suggest that members of one party have been the only persons to defend human rights and fundamental freedoms, because I am sure many of us have read of the activities of the Duchess of Atholl, a well-known Tory in some respects, who took a great interest in this question. Then there was the Countess of Warwick, a Tory in many respects in her early days until she was influenced by some evangelical preacher and socialist contacts. She was another aristocrat who became interested in the preservation of fundamental rights and human freedoms.
I think that at this point it would be appropriate to mention that there seems to be some instinct among the British peoples in all parties which causes them to recognize the value of democracy and to understand the meaning of freedom and its foundations. I think it would be appropriate at this time in view of the unfortunate death of the Right Hon. Aneurin Bevan to mention that I heard him speak in the House of Commons in November, 1946, when he paid a magnificent tribute to the Right Hon. Winston Churchill. Mr. Churchill was then on the first seat to the right of the front government benches. I was in the gallery, listening with interest, and I heard Mr. Bevan pay tribute to the former prime minister of Great Britain. During most of the time Mr. Bevan was speaking the former prime minister was applauding most heartily. I think this indicates the essence of what democracy stands for, when two men, at opposite ends of the poll as far as economics and, possibly, as far as social origins are concerned, are willing to pay tribute to each other's ability and to the contribution they have made to the country and to the welfare of the state.
At the same time I had the happy experience of being entertained at the Hurling-ham club. I am not used to going to such 79951-0-373
Human Rights
places, because I am a humble person, but I was invited one Sunday by members of the House of Lords who kindly put on a special dinner for me at the club. I had an interesting time explaining the Canadian situation to them and explaining what the C.C.F. stood for and its position in relation to the Labour party. I remember one ancient peer-he was a member of the peerage, not the beerage-saying this, this incident comes to mind because it is connected with Mr. Aneurin Bevan: He said: "you know, that man has said some very annoying things on occasions, at times some nasty things but really he is a very decent fellow. He is very honest, he has strong socialist convictions but he is a sound democrat. You know, he is an excellent chap to go on a party with once in a while." That, I think, could only happen in a country like Great Britain where the principles we have talked about here in the last two or three days are respected, and practised.
To return to Canadian history, I think no one who has spoken so far in this debate has mentioned names of persons in recent Canadian history who have been staunch defenders of human rights and fundamental freedoms. I am sure everyone would wish mention to be made of the late Mr. J. S. Woodsworth's magnificent contribution and in particular his fight in opposition to section 98 of the Criminal Code during and after the Winnipeg strike-a man who went to jail because he believed in human rights. Then there was William Irvine who served in this house for a good many years. He is still active, and I understand that at the present time he is travelling abroad in order to extend his knowledge of international conditions and world affairs. I could also mention the father of the present hon. member for Vancouver East, Mr. Ernest Winch, who spent all his life in support of the principles we are discussing this afternoon.
We all know, in more recent years particularly, of the stand taken by Mr. M. J. Cold-well and his defence of the principles about which we are now speaking, and I wish, also, to give credit to the Senate, because I like to give credit where it is due. I was delighted last year when the Senate took a strong stand in opposition to representatives of the private power companies of British Columbia who came to the Senate committee and urged it to recommend an amendment to an act which had been passed by this parliament. The act provided in one of its sections that taxation of the export of power should be by law instead of by order in council. These private power companies came to the Senate committee and urged that this should be changed so that

Human Rights
taxation on the export of power would be by order in council so that they would have an opportunity to come before any government and negotiate the taxes they would pay. I was very pleased on reading the minutes of the Senate to notice that the members of both parties in that chamber unitedly opposed the suggestion made by the private power companies of British Columbia in this respect.
As far as I personally am concerned I have always been interested in these questions. As a boy I remember when the miners in the Kootenays were on strike there was a telephone line between Silverton and San-don, two small mining towns in that area, and in order that the mine owners should not know what the conversation was between the union locals concerned the workers got two Gaelic speaking miners from Cape Breton to carry on the necessary conversations. It was reported to the late Mr. Bowser, then attorney general, that there were subversive foreign elements in control of the strike, and Mr. Bowser was going to send the militia to stop it. Anyway the uncle of the present Secretary of State for External Affairs, (Mr. Green), who was then commissioner of works in British Columbia went straight to Victoria and spoke up for those miners. He made it clear that there were no subversive or foreign elements connected with this strike, but that these were men only exercising democratic rights. Thus he persuaded the government not to send in the troops. I mention this because the gentleman in question was a well-known Conservative.
In my own experience I know of two prominent Liberals who insisted on the right of a socialist to speak in a small community Where the local board of trade had arranged to have him thrown into the lake when he arrived at the dock on the steamer.
There are many others in all parties, though possibly they are in a minority, who have an instinct for doing this sort of thing and defending the principles we are now discussing. All these people, whether socialists or Liberals or Conservatives, were moved by an elemental force, a spirit proceeding from a knowledge of principles, honesty and from conviction. People of that type did not rely on a multigraph machine or on advertising agencies to spread their views and ideas in the community and influence others. The Prime Minister CMr. Diefenbaker)-and I give him full credit-has shown a public interest in the question since about 1942, I understand, by his speeches in this house, by resolutions introduced into this house, and by speeches outside the house.

When the Prime Minister introduced the second reading of the bill the stage was well set. It was confederation day. There was the glamour and glitter of the ceremony of the previous evening and the anticipation of the coming afternoon. There were crowded galleries showing the interest of the public in this question. We all listened to his words with great attention.


Mr. Brunsden:: So did those in the galleries.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: The Prime Minister sipped from the goblet of parliamentary sublimity sip by sip with relish, the only fly in the ointment being that fearless trumpet-voiced stinging nettle from the riding of Timiskaming (Mr. Peters).
This debate deals with a principle with which an increasing number of Canadians are concerned. The Prime Minister agreed with an earlier opposition spokesman who said that the opposition has the responsibility of criticism. I will now summarize our criticism of this bill, not for the sake of repetition but to have it appear on the record in relation to our intentions.
The first criticism is the lateness of the session for the introduction of the bill. The committee will not have sufficient time to deal with it properly. We want the committee to take ample time to examine it so all interested organizations can present their views.
The second criticism is that the government did not consult the provinces. It is not enough to say the experience of the past justifies inaction in that respect.
The third criticism is that the bill is weak from a legal point of view.
The fourth criticism is that it does not guarantee the rights mentioned. It is a declaration without guarantees.
The fifth criticism is that there is no protection provided for economic freedom.
We are laymen in this group with no legal training. Therefore in discussing bills of this kind we have to rely on information from experts in the field. In that connection I will quote from a book entitled "Civil Liberties and Canadian Federalism" by F. R. Scott, a prominent member of the C.C.F. and a noted authority on constitutional law. Although the book was published in 1959 it deals with the principle of the Prime Minister's bill introduced last year, and this one is similar. I will quote one paragraph:
I conclude therefore that this bill has perhaps educational value; it will stand as a solemn affirmation of democratic beliefs; it spells out a number of specific rights in a detailed way. It is a bill of rights for all Canadians, yes, because all Canadians come under some federal law. But it is a very partial bill, applicable only in peacetime, no stronger

than the self-restraint of our federal members of parliament at any given moment, and inapplicable to provincial legislatures. Moreover it is confined to political and personal freedoms; it makes no attempt to protect other human rights, like the right to non-discrimination in employment. Cultural and economic rights are also omitted.
The Prime Minister mentioned past experience as justification for not consulting the provinces. We believe he should have included these principles in the constitution covering only those fields over which parliament has jurisdiction while at the same time urging the provinces to pass enabling legislation, as it were bills of rights in the various provinces, so that in time all Canadians would be covered by the umbrella of federal and provincial legislation. There has been criticism all across the country by individuals, organizations and editors along the lines voiced by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue).
We want the provinces to be with us in working toward the development of legislation enshrining these great historic principles in our constitution and provincial statutes. We intend to support the bill as the first instalment of a program that soon will guarantee to all Canadians their fundamental rights and human freedoms. We hope the bill goes to committee and that the committee will find some inspiration from the debate on second reading. We recommend the amendments we have advancd which will strengthen the language of the bill.
In Great Britain these rights and freedoms have been accepted for centuries based on historic legal documents, tradition, precedence, practice and the spirit of the people. Some ask why, in view of the experience in countries like Great Britain, do we need a bill of rights. I realize no bill of rights is effective without the understanding and support of the people it is intended to serve. However in our industrial society conditions are rapidly changing. You cannot change the total area or volume of the earth. They are constant. You cannot change the total power in the world or in any country. They are constant.
In our industrial society the sources of these powers are changing quickly as a result of the industrial revolution. First, governments require and obtain more and more power to do the things necessary for the people and country. Second, some segments of our economy are obtaining more and more power every year and try to use it. An example was a group of representatives of private power companies of British Columbia who attempted to persuade the Senate to vote for taxation by order in council. These monopolists are becoming stronger and bolder every year. We in this group believe that 79951-0-373J
Human Rights
in addition to the example provided by the experience in Great Britain and other countries the time has come to enshrine in our constitution the human rights and fundamental freedoms we aim to preserve and extend. The preservation of freedom in any society or in any country, regardless of bills of rights, sections in the constitutions, in the last analysis depends on the spirit of the people and their eternal vigilance and understanding.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I must say we will look forward to the report of the committee that will study this most important bill and at that time we will take advantage of the opportunity to express our opinions on the committee's report.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I rise to clear up a matter which was raised this morning by the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) who accused my department of doing something incorrectly by order in council. The hon. member suggested that I had been responsible for an improper action in that an order in council under the Aeronautics Act had been passed to circumvent the air transport board. This is a complete misunderstanding both of the facts and of the law. The suggestion that this order in council was passed in order to make it unnecessary for a finding of public convenience and necessity to be made is incorrect.
The removal of the requirement for a finding of public convenience and necessity by the air transport board with regard to all classes of service, other than scheduled services, was, in fact, made under the Aeronautic Act by the previous administration in 1954, on the recommendation of the transport board. I would refer the hon. member to the commercial air service's regulations, P.C. 1954 2032, in section 6, subsection 1, which substituted a finding of public interest for all services other than class 1 scheduled services. The further amendment in January by P.C. 1960 65, was made, in fact, on the recommendation of the air transport board, and restated this position, namely the need for a finding of public interest in lieu of public necessity, but removed from this aircraft charter services in groups B and C, medium to light aircraft, so that the board on its own recommendation was not required in these classes of service to make a finding of either public necessity or public interest; that is, no particular finding need be made in regard to these categories of licence, class 4, groups B and C. This change, on the recommendation of the air transport board, was made quite properly under section 13 of the Aeronautics Act.

Human Rights
This was done at the time I announced as a matter of government policy, as a more liberal approach to the granting of group B licences as had previously been done in the case of group C.
As for the suggestion that the minister has assumed a role of interfering with the air transport board, I refute this completely. I have the fullest faith in this board. It is my intent and practice to allow the air transport board to proceed without interference on my part to carry out its judicial functions under the Aeronautics Act in giving effect to the aviation policy of the government.
Subsection (1) of section 15 of the Aeronautics Act provides, however, that the board must have the approval of the minister for the issuance of a licence to operate a commercial air service; while subsections (9) and (11) of the same section provide that any air carrier has a right of appeal to the minister against the decisions of the board. These overriding powers granted the minister were inserted in the Aeronautics Act by the previous administration, presumably for a specific purpose; in fact, I assume the reason is similar to the reason behind the statutory provisions which allow a right of appeal to the governor in council in regard to certain types of decisions made by the board of transport commissioners.
It is my view that the minister should leave the air transport board a free hand in carrying out its judicial and regulatory duties, but that parliament, at the request of the previous administration, inserted these provisions in the Aeronautics Act which give the minister and the government power, if it should be his view and that of the government that the national interest requires the minister to exercise his special powers in regard to licensing policy in accordance with normal judicial procedure and with the law.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask the minister whether he was in the house the other day when in answer to a question I put to him the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) said that if those acts had taken place before he would see to it, or at least he indicated that they would not happen again, following this bill. Is it the intention in the future not to change regulations by order in council?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I was not in the house at the time and, as the hon. member knows, the Prime Minister is very well able to explain and defend anything he said in this house. I doubt whether there is anything in this matter that he needs to defend because I am sure when he spoke he said what he had to say so very clearly that anybody could understand it.


Mr. J. E. Pascoe (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, many members have dealt quite fully with the wording and intent of Bill No. C-79. I will not attempt to repeat those statements which are now on record for future generations to read. I make special reference to the very full and clear outline of the bill by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) today.
Like other speakers, I am proud to be a member of this parliament, to be in this third session of the 24th parliament to assist in the passing of this bill for the recognition and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms.
I feel I must take this opportunity to congratulate the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) on his sponsorship of this long-awaited measure, the importance of which even opposition speakers have acknowledged and emphasized by their actions, if not by their words. Reference to and outline of the measure at an earlier session, and probable passage at this session after more than a year of consideration by Canadians, individually and in groups, and by organizations, will be one of the highlights of the Prime Minister's parliamentary career.
The stand of the official opposition in this debate has been one of criticism apparently merely for the sake of criticism. This was shown by the vote on the C.C.F. amendment which would have killed the bill for this session. After all their protestations and faultfinding the Liberals voted to keep the bill before the house rather than have it blocked by the C.C.F. In this it would appear they knew they were meeting the wishes of the people. Most of the criticism of opposition speakers has been along the one line. They say the wording of the bill is unimaginative and uninspiring. Here again they offer carping criticism apparently, as I said before, merely for the sake of criticism. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice have answered those minor criticisms very effectively.
The Prime Minister has said that the wording of this bill is deliberately short and specific to make the intent completely clear and easily understood by all. In a dozen or more lines are outlined and guaranteed our basic freedoms in so far as the powers of the federal parliament are concerned. As the explanatory notes state, part I provides for the establishment of a bill of rights for Canada and part II provides for the continuation in modified form of authority to deal effectively with war, invasion or insurrection.
I do not find the brief wording of the bill unimaginative and uninspiring. I can see

school children learning at an early age this statement of human rights and fundamental freedoms in our free democracy. They will repeat for their teachers that under the Canadian bill of rights it is declared that in Canada there shall continue to exist the right of the individual to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property, the right of the individual to the protection of the law without discrimination by reason of race, national origin, colour, religion or sex, together with freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and association and freedom of the press. Such a guarantee of freedom contained in so few words is far from being uninspiring. Even at public school age students by repeating the words I have just cited will realize the meaning of being a free Canadian.
I see no need to alter part I for any window dressing of words as suggested by some opposition speakers. Of course, there is always the possibility of a preamble in more poetic or high-sounding words. It could be something along this line: When, after nearly five score years of confederation, Canadians called for legislative protection against government encroachment on their civil rights a champion of their rights appeared. A reference to the appearance of such a champion would catch the imagination of all and would give a present day setting to events that will certainly be listed in the pages of history. This is merely a suggestion 1 offer for the consideration of the committee that will be considering the bill before third reading.
The privileges of individual rights, Mr. Speaker, involve personal responsibilities and obligations. If I may, I should like to refer to one particular freedom with which I have had some experience, freedom of the press. I must admit that my newspaper experience was in earlier days. In terms of time it might be referred to as B.C., before columnists and before commentators. In those days reporters reported events as they actually happened; factual reporting, we called it. These factual reports of actual events appeared in the news columns. Opinions and personal views appeared on the editorial page and were easily recognized as merely personal views. Scrupulous care was taken to make sure that personal or biased views did not colour the factual reporting.
In its present connotation the word "press", of course, includes radio and television. As found on page 4639 of Hansard for September 5, 1958, the Prime Minister stated when introducing a similar bill:
I would point out that radio as such or broadcasting in general is not included, because freedom of the press has been defined as including freedom respecting broadcasting.
Human Rights
I have two newspaper clippings here from recent editions of my home town paper, the Moose Jaw Times-Herald. One editorial is headed, "Freedom of the Press" and the second, "What a Free Press Means". I believe that excerpts from these articles are well worth putting on the record. From the editorial headed, "Freedom of the Press" I read the following:
-under modem conditions the press is the principal agency by which the ordinary man receives the information he needs to judge the actions of his rulers and make up his mind on public affairs.
The editorial headed, "What a Free Press Means", reads in part as follows:
In a complex society, few people have the time or opportunity to attend meetings of the various legislative, judicial and administrative bodies which co-ordinate that society. The average man must perforce delegate that task to the journalist.
And further:
The newspaper's job is to winnow the flow of gossip, censure, praise, complaint and proposal, separating the precious grains of fact from the heap of fabrication and fancy.
I should like to repeat those last words, "separating the precious grains of fact from the heap of fabrication and fancy". The first editorial to which I have referred also contains these words:
All liberty ... involves obligations. That of a free newspaper is to be ... thorough, accurate and unbiased in its reporting, sincere and thoughtful in its editorials-
Only such a newspaper, and when I say "newspaper" I also include radio and television, is worthy of the privileges involved in freedom of the press. I believe this sums up the situation very clearly. I am pleased to see some members of the press gallery present. I know their interest in this bill is very great. Again, I wish to congratulate the Prime Minister upon the culmination of his long efforts to bring in a Canadian bill of rights. I am very happy to be here to support his bill.
(Translation):


Mr. Augusiin Brassard (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I want to take part for a few minutes in the discussion of the recognition and protection of human rights and basic freedoms.
I listened with great attention when the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) introduced his bill. The Prime Minister-I will admit-has for many years spoken in this house of legislation which would officially and publicly establish human rights, and has frequently advocated a bill to recognize and preserve those rights.

Human Rights
When the Prime Minister introduced his bill I listened with deep attention. He expressed exalted feelings and also some that were not so high-minded. He spoke feelingly of human freedoms. He said that, in the past, a former government had taken action which was a flagrant denial of those freedoms. He professed to remain above petty politics; however, with a sarcastic smile, he mentioned cases which, according to him, were a violation of human rights and freedoms.
Mr. Speaker, in spite of my limited experience in politics, I have often heard statesmen who excelled in expressing high-minded views. I have also heard some who, at the same time, harboured feelings that were quite the opposite of high-minded. The Prime Minister of this country excels at both.
A bill of rights is something everybody accepts. The Liberal party has been accused of failing to recognize the fact, at the time it held power. The Liberal party has stood judgment in the last two elections. The party chose a new leader who clearly expressed his views on the bill concerning human rights and basic freedoms. Why should we always be reminded of what happened seven, ten and even 12 years ago? The people of Canada have spoken with regard to the administration which ruled this country in 1957. We now have another one, and Liberal members, like their leader, have clearly expressed their views on this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I have been rather surprised by the remarks the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) made this morning. I have great esteem for him, and I say so openly. But, after listening to him, I revised my views with regard to the theory of metempsychosis, or the theory of reincarnation.
Before last June 22, whenever we ventured to criticize the provincial administration, we were often accused of belittling our own province. The Minister of Justice told us this morning that by criticizing the bill of rights, we came close to belittling the people who had elected us, because we were criticizing a legislation which aimed at protecting those freedoms.
There was a man who used to reason in that fashion, and who was premier of my province. I did not bear him any grudge for reasoning that way, but I am amazed that a man of the stamp of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) should be doing so.

The Minister of Justice also accused the members of Her Majesty's loyal opposition of playing politics with this bill providing for the recognition and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms. Well then, Mr. Speaker, let us consider again what was said by the one who introduced the bill and who set the tone of this debate. As I said earlier, the Prime Minister of my country expressed lofty feelings in introducing the bill of rights but, on the other hand, he expressed other views that were directly opposite to those lofty feelings and that magnanimity. No one therefore, should be surprised if we recall certain facts in reply to the statement made by the Prime Minister in introducing the bill.
I feel it is the responsibility of the first citizen of this country to inform the people. The Prime Minister of this country should keep above party divisions. In other words, every time he speaks, a statesman who is perfectly conscious of his responsibilities, of his serious responsibilities as the country's first citizen, should teach something to the people. That is his first responsibility. He must be concerned with the general welfare of the people, he must be a leader, and even at the detriment of his political future, must speak his mind. In short, he should speak the truth.
Moreover, I think that, in introducing a bill for the protection of human liberties and fundamental freedoms, the first citizens of this country should rise high above those who sit in the second last or last row in the house- that is my own section. In other words, I could easily forgive myself, or as easily forgive all my colleagues of this section, for playing politics on a question as noble and sublime as this. But I find it very hard to forgive it to the first citizen of my country, the man who holds the highest office in Canada, the man who should set the tone of our debates in this house.
I am glad that the Prime Minister did introduce this bill, however tardily. My colleagues, beginning with my leader, have made quite appropriate and judicious remarks. This does not mean, Mr. Speaker, that when we criticize a bill, we do not approve of its principle. Besides, if there is a man here who should understand this attitude, it is the Prime Minister of Canada, who used to sit on this side of the house. On many occasions he agreed with the former administration on many a point, and when he disagreed, he used to say so clearly and very

forcibly. Where he disagreed with the former administration, was on the way certain legislation was being applied. Well, we too, now disagree with this administration on the way it has submitted this bill of human rights. We disagree with the government especially on certain matters which, in our humble opinion, are lacking in this bill.
I am glad, as I said, that this bill is introduced, because I can give examples-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: The Dillon bill.


Augustin Brassard: -that were in flagrant opposition to human freedoms. My colleague from Joliette-L'Assomption-Mont-calm (Mr. Pigeon) wants to interrupt, as usual. However, I do not think I need reply to him, because the province has already given him a reply.
Things have happened in our province which I cannot admit, and which several, or even most, of our rightminded citizens do not admit either. When we speak of freedom of speech, freedom of opinion and freedom of thought-all of them mentioned in this bill-when speaking of basic freedoms, we seem to forget that, in our own province, there have been serious transgressions of those freedoms.
What, for instance, should we think of a member of parliament, or of a minister, who would come to a riding and tell the voters: "If you want to have the bridge, or that school you need, let us know of your intentions-"


Mr. Valade:: Petty politics.


Augustin Brassard: This is not petty politics. They are instances of violations of the principles contained in this bill and that is precisely why we are being upbraided for talking about this matter.


Georges-J. Valade: What about Taschereau?


Augustin Brassard: Mr. Taschereau made mistakes, and was judged for them.


Georges-J. Valade: Good.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: He is dead.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: Others too are now dead.


Augustin Brassard: But when you use that kind of talk with the voters in a constituency, are you not denying them the right to their opinions? People in a constituency are entitled to elect the representative of their choice. If the voters decide to elect
Human Rights
someone, whether he is a member of the C.C.F., a Liberal, a Social Crediter, a supporter of the Union Nationale or a Conservative, that is their prerogative. But if you tell them for instance, in very clear terms: "Either you elect Mr. So-and-so, or you will not get that school or that bridge",
I think you are encroaching on the freedom of thought and freedom of expression of the constituents.
Moreover, if users of such tactics had the courage to be consistent and go the whole way, instead of saying "You will not vote for Mr. So-and-so", they would use the same methods as in some countries of central Europe, and would nominate only one candidate, the government candidate. Then there would be no need to bully the constituents, and the people would have little choice. They could only vote for the government candidate, the only one running.
The trouble is, you would at the same time be depriving the people in that constituency of their freedom of thought and freedom of expression.
There has been talk, too, about freedom of religion. I know too little about the theories of the Witnesses of Jehovah to be able to say whether it is a religion; however, there have been people in our province who went to court to prevent the Witnesses of Jehovah from expressing their views.
As to freedom of the press, there have also been certain acts that made deep inroads into the freedom of opinion of some newspapers.
That is the reason why, up to a point, I am very pleased at the introduction of this bill by the Prime Minister; I am less happy, however, at the fact that the government has not seen fit to consult the provinces before taking such action. Oh, the Minister of Justice did tell us this morning: there is no need to consult the provinces, it would take too much time, there would be many problems, we would never get through.
Is that reason enough not to consult them?
If, instead, the provinces had been consulted-we have been hearing about this bill on fundamental freedoms and human rights since 1957, there would have been ample time to discuss the matter with representatives of the provinces-we would by now have received their replies.
Had their replies been negative in certain cases, I would gladly have surrendered to the views of the Prime Minister and of the Minister of Justice, who could then have

Human Rights
come back and said: Look, we did all we could to get the agreement of the provincial authorities on this bill; we got in touch with the representatives of Canada's ten provinces. In two or three cases, perhaps even only one, we have been unable to secure the full and wholehearted agreement of the province, for such or such a reason.
Then I would have readily agreed with the Prime Minister of Canada, and I would have said to him: You did your best to convince the provincial authorities of our country that we needed the co-operation or the agreement of the provinces, so that this bill would have a truly national significance. I would have understood. I might not have agreed with the province or the provinces thus refusing to join in this project but, just the same, I would have appreciated the effort made by the Prime Minister to get them to endorse the bill he intended to submit to this house.
My Liberal colleagues have stated our main objections to the bill, and I have stated others, but this does not at all mean that we oppose the principle of the bill. We have always supported the principle of freedoms, and the best evidence of this, is that, while we may never have expressed it formally, we have always respected it.
The examples given by the Prime Minister in introducing his bill relate to the wartime administration, when there was a national emergency.
The government of my country at the time gave serious consideration to the situation before taking the steps they took. It does not mean that they were right, but I am convinced that they looked into the situation carefully before arriving at a decision and that they acted in good faith, their sole purpose being the interest of our country. Even the Prime Minister cannot deny this.
Besides, since 1957, since June 20 or 21, 1957, things have happened that we could condemn. However, I am not ready to accuse the government of acting in bad faith.
In my opinion, the government attempts or should always attempt to look into the situation, and to take measures it deems beneficial to the public interest.
The former administration also appreciated that responsibility. So much so, in fact, that the people did not hesitate to show their confidence by keeping that administration in power for 22 years.
Nevertheless, I am opposed to the considerations made by the Prime Minister of Canada when introducing his bill with

regard to the recognition and protection of basic freedoms and human rights.
If he had just stated the high-minded feelings he expressed in his address, I would have had much more regard for him. I still have high regard for him but I would have even more.
In saying this, Mr. Speaker, I am grieved, because I feel that we should have the highest regard-


Mr. Bourbonnais:: Don't cry, now.


Augustin Brassard: I don't want anybody to cry. I think that we should have great respect for the first citizen of our country, because he is the one who sets the tone of our discussions in this house. He should therefore be above all petty politics.


Marcel Bourbonnais: You have said this twice now.


Augustin Brassard: All right, I have said it twice. I could repeat it 20 times, because the Prime Minister has departed from that rule more than 20 times.
I hope that from now on we shall not have to deplore this tendency on the part of the first citizen of this country.
I shall now make a suggestion which was already mentioned by other members, that is to refer the bill now before us to a joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons.
Since 1957, we knew that we should have to discuss a bill of rights. Why was it not introduced sooner? Thus, opportunity would have been given to have it considered by a joint committee of both houses.
We are now in the last days of the session. We are presented with this bill and asked: Are you going to vote against it? Are you going to oppose the bill? As if to say: Do not oppose the bill; you have no right to speak your mind about it.
We have the right to say what we think of it, we have the right to denounce what we believe are the bill's weaknesses. This does not mean that we are right. We have no monopoly on reason and judgment.


Marcel Bourbonnais: You can say that again.


Augustin Brassard: However, nobody in this house-especially certain Conservative members from Quebec-can say he is entirely right.
At least, I am courageous and frank enough to admit it.

I feel, Mr. Speaker, that we have the right to say what we think.
And, I repeat, this does not mean that we have a monopoly on reason. But we are sincere and we express what we think is the truth. If anyone believes we are in the wrong, then let him tell us so and prove it.
Mr. Speaker, before closing my remarks, I hope the Prime Minister will decide to have this bill considered by a joint committee of the house and the Senate. Before resuming my seat, I want to express my astonishment at the speeches of some hon. members, that is, some Conservative members, who took part in this debate. They seemed to have had some prior briefing. All of them praised the Prime Minister of Canada. Not a single criticism was levelled at the bill. Besides, those who might have criticisms to make will not make them here. I know, and if you want a name I shall give it right away. But it is obvious that not all Conservative members of this house are this enthusiastic about this bill.
However, I hope that the Prime Minister will take into account the suggestions made by the opposition. Especially do I hope that the bill of rights will help maintain the freedoms of all Canadians, freedoms of which we are all proud, and that we all want to be maintained in Canada, both the leader of my party and the leader of the government.
(Text):
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and
Victoria): Mr. Speaker, in opening the remarks I have to make upon this subject may I observe that I believe there are few occasions in the normal routine of parliamentary business which justify a non-partisan approach. However, I believe the measure now before the house provides ample evidence in support of the assertion that on this occasion we are justified in leaving our partisan or sectarian prejudices aside in the consideration of so vital a matter as the preservation and enlargement of fundamental human rights.
Indeed it is on occasions such as the present bill introduced by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) affords that parliament should be seen at its finest, when the gangway that divides this house should shrink under the friendly atmosphere of a common concern and a shared sense of appreciation of the important essentials that in fact unite us. When we come together to consider ways and means of securing even more surely the foundations of human liberty it should be in an atmosphere devoid of 79951-0-374
Human Rights
personal bias or narrow, partisan sectarianism. This is not the time nor the place where the sacred rights of the individual are to be trifled with like pawns on some national chessboard for mere selfish, partisan advantage. In our attempt to guarantee the basic rights of all Canadians let us beware lest we appear to be the pleaders of some special cause or interest. Freedom is indivisible; it must know no boundaries, no limits, no ethnic, racial or religious preferences, apart from the reasonable and equitable demands of reason and responsibility.
Perhaps no subject prompts such widespread interest as the consideration of human rights. Around the world there are precious few bonds that unite nation with nation, but of all the ties that do bind the hearts of mankind none is so strong or so universally appealing as the deep-seated hunger after liberty. It may find expression in different tongues, with different symbols and contrasting motives, but whatever the language the overtones, the melody of liberty is familiar.
I am reminded that in my own riding, as I am sure in other ridings across our land, the heritage of our past recalls for us the truth of this yearning that goes beyond the boundaries of race or creed, or even time itself. Some of the early settlers of Cape Breton came to this land from across the seas in order to escape the tyranny and persecution which afflicted them. They came because the air was free. They came that their children might be born and educated free from the depressing shadows of the countless types of slavery that threatened to envelop and enslave them. They came in quest of personal liberty.
So, I feel that the people I represent are vitally involved in this bill of rights, and I would be remiss in the discharge of my duty to my constituents and to Canada if in a matter that concerns every Canadian I were to remain silent and by that gesture of neglect fail to raise my voice for the cause of freedom.
The bill before this house is a most interesting and significant legislative development. I must at the outset disclaim any pretence of being versed in the legal or constitutional complexities of such a measure, but I respectfully submit that the voice of freedom's followers cannot be confined to the carefully measured syllables of the legal expert alone. On the contrary, our voices must transmit the longings and aspirations, the hopes and fears of all who hunger and thirst after liberty. Perhaps I can add my voice to those of others, and speak, if I may, for the so-called ordinary man in the street, or

Human Rights
woman in the street to whom the legal niceties and constitutional technicalities are a strange and alien tongue.
The bill introduced by the Prime Minister at a previous session and now laid before the house for our consideration deserves the serious attention of every hon. member. I believe it is worth noting that in the very manner in which this measure has been submitted every effort has been made to see that this bill receives the careful, thorough study that its subject matter demands. The Prime Minister when he first introduced this bill in September of 1958 deliberately chose not to press parliament for a decision on this matter. Rather he invited all hon. members, and indeed the nation at large, to use the intervening months for careful study followed by practical, realistic and constructive suggestions as to how the bill could be improved within the framework of our present constitutional abilities.
What have we witnessed since that historic September day? With few exceptions it has been a case of much sound and fury signifying nothing. In almost every case the critical comments have been characterized by a negative, impractical and unrealistic approach. In essence, the critics of this bill have said: It is so far short of the ideal that we cannot stand the thought of having to accept a measure that is less than perfect.
My partisan preferences and genuine admiration for the Prime Minister and leader of my party have not blinded me to the awareness of truth and reality. Indeed, I freely concede that this measure is not perfect. Ideally I could wish that the fundamental legislative guarantees of basic human rights could be both comprehensive and protected from the risk of passing emotion and temporary public displeasure.
We could all wish that Canada's growth and development had reached the stage where we could say that all our constitutional and procedural problems had been solved. We would all agree that such basic assurances as provided in this bill should apply to all Canadians in every part of Canada under whatever jurisdiction. We all desire that such safeguards be so enshrined that the effort required to destroy or amend them would be sufficient to deter all but the genuine need for legitimate reform.
But Canadians must not let these so-called saints of perfection pull the wool over our eyes. Are we for that reason to deny to all Canadians some measure of protection simply because we are not able to achieve the perfect solution? If this view is sound then I submit that confederation was a dismal mistake, the linking of this country by rail

was a foul plot and indeed we could say that every forward step we have taken along the great road of confederation has been a sorry bedraggled series of disasters because we have had to settle for something less than perfection itself.
I cannot subscribe to that view, no matter from what quarter of the house it is proposed. In fact, I rather seriously doubt whether my hon. friends opposite in their own hearts even subscribe to such an obviously discredited philosophy. However, how they vote on this bill will in the final analysis reveal their real beliefs. Canada's history has many examples of honourable compromise and accommodation. In fact it has often been said, rather facetiously I fear, that this is the typically Canadian way to solve a problem.
Before voting on a bill as important, far-reaching and significant as this one we should give careful consideration to the expression of views that reflect the public mind on this issue. Some submissions, because of their very biased and partisan accent, we are forced to discount, but there have been several organizations that represent a fair cross-section of informed public thought on this question which should not be overlooked. I wish to quote from one or two of these submissions because I feel they come very close to expressing my own convictions in this respect.
I should like to quote from a resolution passed at a joint meeting of the council for social services and the executive council of general synod of the Anglican Church of Canada held in Toronto November 13, 1958. This represents one of the largest religious bodies in Canada. The resolution is as follows:
Whereas the Anglican Church of Canada has on several occasions expressed agreement with the Lambeth conference statement of 1948 to the effect that basic human rights should be "declared by the church, recognized by the state, and safeguarded by international law", and
Whereas the Canadian government has introduced a bill of rights in the House of Commons entitled, "An act for the recognition and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms",
The council for social service in annual session reaffirms its approval in principle of a declaration of human rights for all Canadians.
I should now like to read from a submission made by one of the smallest religious bodies, the Seventh Day Adventist Church in Canada. This church took the time to study the matter very thoroughly and apparently spared no pains in an effort to express the collective thinking of its communicants on this subject for the benefit of the government and this house. This is a relatively small Christian church but it is the very inability of this church to speak as a majority group that lends a unique and significant import

to these observations. I now quote from their brief submitted to the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) on January 9 of last year, copies of which brief were sent, I believe, to all hon. members:
The passage of a bill of rights reinforced and improved to the limit of present constitutional abilities will undoubtedly serve as one more powerful weapon in the arsenal of human liberty. We pray that it might be the best that human hands and hearts can devise. Human liberty requires constant vigilance and effort for its preservation and enlargement.
At page 5 of their submission they say:
We believe that the government is to be congratulated for its action in bringing down such a measure in parliament and for having taken time to ascertain the views of organizations and individuals with respect to this subject before submitting the bill to parliament for final legislative action. We applaud the genuine concern for human rights that this action and consequent procedures reveal.
And again at page 6:
We fully recognize that this measure is a first step along a long road, and we applaud the efforts of the government to take the initiative in leading Canada on this significant path to freedom. We ask that no effort be spared to see that other necessary steps are taken without undue delay.
Here we see the type of constructive, critical analysis that should characterize our deliberations at all times, but particularly when we are considering a measure that goes far beyond the bounds of our usual routine, partisan approach to the nation's business and welfare. I believe that these submissions from which I have just quoted outline a patriotic and rational attitude that commends itself to all hon. members.
This is not the occasion for the time-honoured pastime of shadow boxing in the ring of political aspirations. Let us be quite frank. This bill has its shortcomings, it is not perfect, it could contain other features that would reflect our deep longing for the firmest and most positive assurances that personal freedom shall for all time be secure. But we live in an imperfect world. We sojourn in an imperfect society. The important point which we must not overlook, though I fear that my hon. friends opposite with their tendency to see only the short term advantages are likely to neglect, is that Canada is moving forward along the long path toward the sunlit highlands of peace, justice, order and liberty in the widest measure for all Canadians.
Let us just note the gains that have been made. We have our solid foundation of Anglo-Saxon tradition and common law as a sound and true base for liberty's temple. The outstanding contribution over the years of our courts has given to this great edifice of freedom the sturdy yet beautiful walls it must have in a long and distinguished series of decisions that have served to reinforce the 79951-0-3741
Human Rights
shrine of liberty. Now we are called upon to take the first steps in providing the roof of the great shrine of Canadian liberty.
Are there any who feel that it is wise to try to erect the whole roof all at once? Is liberty deserving of only a prefabricated shelter? I should think not. It must have nothing but the best; and the best comes only after patient, thorough effort. It does seem strange that there are groups who, for reasons best known to themselves, fear to take a forward step because in one step they cannot encompass the whole journey. To these fearful hearts I would commend the words of some of our great national heroes. I am reminded of a statement that that great French Canadian patriot, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, once made when he was speaking in Montreal:
I have devoted my career to the realization of an idea. I have taken the work of confederation where I found it when I entered political life, and determined to give it my life, and nothing will deter me from continuing to the end in my task to preserve at all price our civil liberty.
I commend the words of this great Canadian mentor to his present-day political heirs. They would do well to imbibe some of the courage and vision of this man. Indeed, as one other great patriot, D'Arcy McGee, said:
We are in the rapids and must go on.
Canada finds itself in the rapids and if the precious cargo of freedom, yes life itself, is to be preserved from the swirling, treacherous currents of our times, we must go on in our search for the calm though strong and flourishing havens that liberty deserves.
It has been said, with a great deal to commend it, that we need, along with this bill, a bill of responsibilities. Ever since confederation we have been spelling out the responsibilities, the duties of Canadian citizens in every session of parliament and in the longer list of provincial legislatures. Now it is high time we gave to Canada, as a first step, a bill of rights that will clearly declare to all Canadians, present and future, the course of the road we have set our faces to travel toward.
I have not heard of hon. members complaining too effectively when some progressive piece of legislation is introduced in this house, by whatever government of Her Majesty, that unless we can have the whole scheme in its perfect ideal we shall have none of it. Yet this is the very type of questionable argument that some would have us believe should be accepted as the evidences of real statesmanship. Let us avoid that discreditable brand of doubtful statesmanship in this house.
So I say to you, sir, and through you to my compatriots, let us give Canada this bill

Human Rights
of rights now. Let us bring to this hour of Canada's history a largeness of heart and mind that can match the greatness of our land. Let us unite, despite the artificial bonds of race, tongue or creed, as Canadians, unhyphenated Canadians. Let us work together to make Canada one of the great fortresses of the free mind, of the liberated soul. In a world where the islands of true liberty are slowly but surely sinking into the oblivion of a dark and dismal sea of bigotry and hatred we should lay aside our party differences. This is a fine moment in Canada's history; it must see the finest in terms of our courage, our vision and our faith in the future. I am sure we shall all register that confidence by supporting this bill, Mr. Speaker.
(Translation):


Jean-Jacques Martel: Mr. Speaker, I consider it a privilege to be able to make some remarks on Bill C-79. I will not have to make a historical review of the rights and freedoms that are already guaranteed to us by the Canadian constitution, at least implicitly, or by the Magna Carta, or even by the British custom that we have inherited, since many of my learned colleagues have already done so. But all the same, I would like to put on record my personal views on this bill.
Mr. Speaker, by a happy coincidence-I would even say by a providential coincidence -we are discussing a most important bill which every right-thinking citizen must consider because we are, at this time, in this modern twentieth century that has already been called the atomic age. At this historical moment, no true Christian could question the usefulness nor the need for a collective manifestation of our faith in democracy and in the integral respect of human rights.
The world today is witnessing extraordinary and significant events that are setting all mankind a-tremble. The famous summit conference, in which we had too naively placed so much hope, has been sabotaged in a deliberate and even insidious manner by the spokesman of international communism.
At this summit meeting of the major heads of the states which hoped in the final triumph of the peaceful aspirations of the great majority of human beings, international communism was represented. It shed its mask, indicating once again the lack of sincerity on the part of the leaders of this materialistic world that we could call topsyturvydom.

The representative of the materialistic ideology, which our century has to face, did not show himself imbued by the wish to be a good spokesman for the people of his country, deserving as these people are, because of the numerous trials they have endured throughout their history. He was mainly the spokesman of a political party which, by its own definition, is dedicated to the suppression of religion, the promotion of war between the classes, the support of atheism, leading through a relentlessly logical process to the debasement of mankind by completely denying all human rights in the countries submitted to its totalitarian rule.
History irrefutably proves that whenever man has risen against God, or against divine or natural law, he has, inevitably in the end, betrayed the basic freedoms, individual and general.
The struggle between good and evil did not start yesterday; it began in Paradise after the first fall of man. And since then, one generation after another had to fight and exercise a restless vigilance to safeguard the respect of human rights. The lot of humanity has improved since the coming of the Saviour, the Lord's son who made himself man but, unfortunately, there are still various areas on earth where the basic freedoms and rights of many are in practice completely denied, even if sometimes, taking a hypocritical attitude, some countries pretend to set up a bill of rights, which, anyhow, is in no way observed.
The abridged title of the legislation before us aims at the recognition of rights and freedoms. Apart from those rights and freedoms, there are also duties and responsibilities. Abuses in various fields are often the result of a wrong interpretation of freedom. Abuses are the cause of many evils and certain people interpret in their own way the freedoms and the rights of man, when it is in their own interest.
It is hard to put on the right track a distorted mind interpreting in its own way, disregarding its duties and responsibilities, the various laws that must govern a country. And, as explained in the house, there has been unfortunate examples of such distorted minds that have ruled the world at certain times in history, particularly since the beginning of our century. Justice and charity towards our fellow citizens are not the least of those things to which we must pay attention.
For all those reasons, as a Canadian citizen proud of my country, of its democratic

regime and, at all times, free to express my opinion, I support this bill introduced by our Prime Minister, the champion of minorities and human rights, and also because I recognize that all individuals, regardless of race, origin, colour, religion or sex, have inalienable rights.
Thus it is in upholding the rights of every citizen across the country that we shall build a strong, great and more united Canada.
(Text):


Mr. Laurier Regnier (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, I deem it a great honour and privilege to take part in the discussion of the bill of rights. It is my opinion that we shall never have peace in the world and unity in Canada unless we can educate and develop more men of good will. The nations of the world are at present spending a large proportion of the fruits of their labour and toil in preparation for possible aggression on account of the lack of men of good will in sufficient numbers to rule our human destinies with freedom and justice. Not only are the peoples of the world maintaining armies and developing war machines which can annihilate life itself on earth but life lived under such perpetual tension becomes to many almost unbearable. A bill of rights under the circumstances is really a beacon toward which not only Canadians but people of all nations can look and take courage and inspiration for freedom and peace.
To my mind this is the most important legislation that this parliament or any parliament can pass. The bill by implication proclaims that one cannot be a true citizen unless he is imbued with the principles embodied in this bill of rights. The true citizen must be desirous of freedom and justice not only for himself but for his neighbours and for all citizens of the world.
Canada was blessed at an important turning point in its history, namely the capitulation of Quebec in 1759, with a number of men of good will as governors from Great Britain. These men through their sterling qualities of heart and mind have made it possible for Canadians to preserve the integrity of the land that we are able to enjoy today. Some of these men deserve to have their names proclaimed as perhaps the real architects of a united Canada. I refer to the first two governors, Governor Murray and Governor Carleton.
The great governor James Murray was the author of the ordinance establishing a civil court in Quebec. This ordinance admitted and allowed the French law and custom in all causes in the courts between natives of Canada and provided also for Canadian advocates to practise in this court. His high
Human Rights
quality of heart and sense of justice are apparent in a letter written by him to the lords of trade dated October 29, 1764. I quote:
My lords:
Little, very little, will content the new subjects but nothing will satisfy the licentious fanaticks trading here but the expulsion of the Canadians who are perhaps the bravest and the best race upon the globe, a race, who could they be indulged with a few privileges which the laws of England deny to Homan Catholicks at home, would soon get the better of every national antipathy to their conquerors and become the most faithful and most useful set of men in this American empire.
I flatter myself there will be some remedy found out even in the laws for the relief of this people. If so, I am positive the popular clamours in England will not prevent the humane heart of the king from following its own dictates. I am confident too my royal master will not blame the unanimous opinion of his council here for the ordinance establishing the courts of justice, as nothing less could be done to prevent great numbers from emigrating directly, and certain I am, unless the Canadians are admitted on juries and are allowed judges and lawyers who understand their language, His Majesty will lose the greatest part of this valuable people.
I have the honour to be with the greatest truth and regard,
My lords, your lordships'
James Murray
I should also like to quote a letter written by Governor Carleton in reply to a complaint of five members of the council, which letter is dated October, 1766. I quote in part:
But that there may be no further doubt I hereby make known to you, and I tooth have and will, on all matters which do not require the consent of council, call together such counsellors as I shall think best qualified to give me information: and further, that I will ask the advice and opinion of such persons, though not of the council, as I shall find men of good sense, truth, candour and impartial justice; persons who prefer their duty to the king and the tranquility of his subjects to unjustifiable attachments, party zeal and to all selfish mercenary means.
Again, in a letter to Lord Shelburne dated December 4, 1767, Carleton writes in part complaining of the legal system:
How far this change of laws, which deprives such numbers of their honour, privileges, profits and property, is conformable to the capitulation of Montreal and treaty of Paris; how far this ordinance, which affects the life, limb, liberty and property of the subject, is within the limits of the power His Majesty has been pleased to grant to the governor in council; how far this ordinance, which in a summary way declares the supreme court of judicature shall judge all cases, civil and criminal, by laws unknown and unpublished to the people, is agreeable to the natural rights of mankind, I humbly submit this much is certain that it cannot long remain in force without a general confusion and discontent.
These two men have laid by their good will, love of justice and freedom a solid foundation upon which a great and united Canada can prosper. Most of the speeches

Human Rights
on this subject have been of a very high level and they speak very well of the members of this parliament. I must, however, take issue with the statements made by the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) when he told the house, as found at page 5728 of Hansard:
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 suspect, that the hon. member for Essex East has not read section 3 of the said bill which reads in part as follows:
All the acts of the parliament of Canada enacted before or after the commencement of this part, all orders, rules and regulations thereunder, and all laws in force in Canada or in any part of Canada at the commencement of this part that are subject to be repealed, abolished or altered by the parliament of Canada, shall, unless it is otherwise expressly stated in any act of the parliament of Canada hereafter enacted, to 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-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Does my hon. friend deny my statement when I said that this bill does not in any way alter the fundamental law of this country which now protects every right which is sought to be protected in this bill?


Laurier Arthur Régnier: I will deny the statement just made by the hon. member because the bill makes all laws that have been passed hitherto subject to the principles of this bill and also all future laws that will be passed subject to the principles of this bill.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It does not alter the law at all.


Laurier Arthur Régnier: This is more than a declaration of the convictions of this parliament with regard to human rights and fundamental freedoms. This bill, with few exceptions, expunges from all acts of the parliament of Canada and all laws in force in any part of Canada anything that abrogates, abridges or infringes any of the rights or freedoms recognized in the bill. Then the eloquent member for Essex East said, as reported at page 5729 of Hansard:
-X say to the Prime Minister that this bill is not the best bill that could be brought forward.
This statement from the hon. member is not surprising, as he is undoubtedly of the opinion that no bill of rights is good because none was produced during the long Liberal regime. The hon. member is also reported as saying on the same page of Hansard:

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 hon. member could make the same criticism of the decalogue which contains in 10 paragraphs all the moral principles which man must obey.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No, no.


Laurier Arthur Régnier: Surely new situations have arisen since the writing of the decalogue. Still it can meet all the situations that have altered since the time of Moses.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Caron) made this statement, as recorded on page 5676 of Hansard:
Besides, if those rights have always existed, and will continue to exist, why clutter up our statutes?
Does not the hon. member believe in the need, for a Christian, to go to church and hear the same principles expounded from the pulpit Sunday after Sunday? Has the hon. member also neglected to read section 3 of the bill of rights? Bill C-79 is not only a declaration of human rights, it also provides for the revision of present and future laws which may come in conflict with its provisions.
I might say the speeches which have been made on this bill of rights are reason enough for introducing this bill, because it contains a reaffirmation and definition of human rights. We have in the past few days enunciated, discussed and affirmed our convictions. Those convictions will fill the pages of our newspapers and inspire our fellow citizens. If that were the only result of this bill, it would be worth while. But those who take the trouble to read the bill realize it is a safeguard for their rights and freedoms. Let us not forget that this new act will have precedence over past and future legislation, as indicated in section 3.
In closing my remarks, Mr. Speaker, I think we should devote a few days every year to a discussion of our freedoms.
(Text):


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, there is not much in the way of originality that I can bring to this long debate but I do feel it is a rather sad occasion in so far as there seems to be so much difference of opinion of a minor kind on various points in the bill. I have tried to approach the matter from the point of view of a schoolteacher who has taught Canadian history to students between the ages of 14 and 17 perhaps lectured them, I do not

know. When you look at the Canadian history that you must put over to a 14 or 17 year old boy or girl you do so in the hope that you are achieving some kind of citizenship indoctrination, some belief in the nation, the spirit of it and where it is going. You have a number of dates and acts upon which you hinge your course.
There is always the Quebec act. There is always Durham's report and the act of union. There is always 1848 and responsible government with Lafontaine and Baldwin as the architects. There is always confederation and Sir John A. Macdonald, Cartier and the British North America Act. You move on from there to the emergence of Canada as a nation, not any longer a colony, and to such matters as the naval bill. You treat with the conscription crisis, and what it means, as well as with such incidents as the Chanok affair in 1922; the Statute of Westminster; the Rowell-Sirois report, and all these sign posts because you are attempting to give to the student an awareness of the Canadian traditions.
I am trying to look at this from the point of view of a schoolteacher. We are going to have in 1960 a bill of rights. In looking at the bill of rights I try to ascertain what message you could take from it to put in a textbook for the students. If anyone has tried to teach history he would discover that the hardest thing to put over is what responsible government is in essence. I have known teachers who have taught that lesson a dozen times a year and who have never been able to get a satisfactory response at the end of that time.
I wanted to turn to another type of history or another class of history that we teach that is much easier to put over and that is either United States or British history. United States history is taught in grades 9 and 10 in Ontario and is associated with Canadian history, as is British history. I think it has been regrettable that British history has not been separated. You get a mixing of the three. I find that the students apparently respond much more quickly and understandably to the signposts, the major points in United States and British history than they do to Canadian history. They can understand the declaration of independence or the Gettysburg address much more quickly than they do to the idea of responsible government or Durham's report. In so far as British history is concerned, you have the role of all the kings and of the great men of British history who tie things together. It is very difficult as a teacher of Canadian history to put forward Canadian heroes and make them stand in any kind of stature against the figures of United States history.
Human Rights
This is why it is always so disappointing to all of us after our students have passed out into the world that they are much more aware of Washington, Lincoln and Jefferson than they are of our own great figures. This is one of the reasons they can tell you about Nelson or even Napoleon; they have some idea even where a person like Gladstone fits, but they cannot give you a response to a Canadian figure. This question of the dullness of our history and of the inability of those of us who teach it to put it over, to make it live with vigour is something that bothers every one of us who has tried to do the job. We can think of all kinds of reasons to excuse ourselves and to excuse the nation itself.
It is with this sense of frustration and dissatisfaction that I have to look at this bill and to see how I, as a teacher, if I were preparing a textbook, could possibly fit this into our social studies or our history texts. I believe we have something that is going to be just as difficult to sell-I use the word "sell" not in the modern merchandising sense -as responsible government because there is no ringing preamble to this bill of rights. There is nothing of literary merit about it. It seems to be largely an exercise in legality and the sadness, as I pointed out at the start, is that we are continuing the typical Canadian difficulty.
Somehow, we seem to be the heirs of two traditions, the United States and Britain. We seem to be strangled by both. We get so much from both and yet when it comes to something like this we are back in the old position of compromise of our sovereignty and allegiances, a complete mix-up of jurisdictions in the country and a lack of unanimity. Despite all the nice things, the kind things that have been said in this house about human freedoms, it is a sad thing that we cannot have a short, pithy document, something that we could give to the young people of the nation.
Of course, you can look to other things that we have not obtained for our young people. We have not a national flag and some say we have not a national anthem. However, we are now going to be able to say that in 1960 we have a bill of rights which was introduced by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker), that it has been of great interest to him for a long time, that some amount of dissatisfaction was felt with regard to the bill but that the government felt that this was the best that could be done at the present time.
May I underline why this situation is so sad. The British tradition that we have, with the respect the British people have for the individual, is something that is different from

Human Rights
that of the Americans. Having lived in England for four years I always think of the British as being deferential people, as tending more along the line of deference, more along the line of great respect for the other person and having an attitude of fair play that is incomparable. It cannot be found elsewhere in the world, in my opinion. This spirit of fair play and of respect for others is one of the reasons why there is no need for them to have any formal statement. They can go back to the evolution of their parliamentary institutions. The institutions that Great Britain built around parliament have always tended to dominate the individual.
This is in contrast, it seems to me, with American history. The British in their sense of fair play and individual freedom have been historically oriented. They have always looked back to signposts. I have already expressed the difficulty that one has as a Canadian history teacher in looking back on Canadian history for our signposts. They just have not the colour or the force. The debt we owe to Britain is great. As the heirs of that tradition I hope we really do not need a bill of rights in that sense and that we can show fair play and respect for the other person, type of persons like the British, and that this bill to a degree is merely supernumerary.
Aside from the British tradition, we also get something from the North American environment by living close to what I think is a much more revolutionary country than soviet Russia ever has been or ever will be. I refer to the American nation with its emphasis upon equality and egalitarianism. One can be quite shocked with the contrast between British respect for form and dignity and American lack of it. The tendency of the American is that he wants to knock people down, and always to insist "I am as good as you are or any other man". But over the years it has become a very powerful force in our attitude toward human freedom. I would tend to suggest now that we share much more the American attitude toward human rights than we do the British one. In other words, I think we are now tending to be in the American revolution tradition rather than in the British evolutionary tradition in our attitude toward freedoms and rights.
The Americans have not been an historically minded people, although they have built up historical myths especially about their great men and hold in great respect people like Washington and Lincoln and the other great figures of their history. But all this emphasis in the United States has tended to be on a couple of exceptional personal

statements and upon great figures in their history. American history is always so exciting even today because most Canadians believe that Americans of this time are going to toss up another great figure who is going to crystallize the thinking of the nation and redirect the nation on a new path. It is a great cause of envy on my part that they should have this characteristic and that we should not have it.
Because of this problem of being confused by always being between these two traditions and never being sure where we are we are left with the sad kind of compromise that we have here at the present time, namely a bill that in my opinion, in a literal sense, is almost inarticulate. I am sure it is legally correct. It is certainly very cautious and it is rather incomplete in its statements of freedom.
I tried to search for reasons why we must be so cautious, why we cannot break into the American tradition that is based so much upon the declaration of independence and the self-evident truths or why we cannot be satisfied with the evolutionary idea that has come from our British stock. I think we must go back in our history to the failure of the French revolution to have had its impact upon our fellow Canadians of French stock. It was one of the great freedom breathing episodes of whole world history, and the fact that our French Canadian compatriots tended to deny the French revolution has left them and us with a minority position that does not look at freedom in either the American revolution way which is close to the French revolution way or is only partly in the British tradition. It seems to me that until we have reached the stage where they can share more in the revolutionary concept that I think other Canadians are tending to feel, we are going to be blessed or cursed, however you want to look at it-I cannot be that strong and say "cursed"-with the kind of bill of rights we have which is a compromise.
Recently I was in Saskatchewan after the election, not before it, and I had opportunity to talk for three days to and with a group of people who were from all political parties. They were generally discussing the question of Canadian democracy and whether it could survive. In respect of Saskatchewan I must say that I think I have never met anywhere else in Canada a body of people who seemed to be so knowledgeable, to have so much common sense and to be willing to accept their responsibilities as citizens; and this particular question of the need for a bill of rights was raised a number of times. I thought one

of the people in the discussion made a contribution that put the question for me.
He said he was not worried too much about impingement upon freedom but he wondered how we would react if his challenge really came. If we had some personality who was able so to dominate the national scene that he could begin to take over by regulation and, with the backing of the R.C.M.P. and the armed services, really begin to change us and direct us toward a kind of dictatorial government and situation that has not been part of our tradition, he wondered what we would do. He said: I wonder whether there are enough people in Canada who could go and get a gun and be prepared to fight.
This again is something that we have not had in our tradition, namely enough people or any people who were prepared to get a gun and go and fight. The Americans have their John Brown and "John Brown's Body". The British have their examples of the glorious revolution of 1688. We have had minor upsets like that of 1837 but it was a tragic and pitiful little affair. There was no great response. We showed very little fight in attaining whatever it is we have attained in the way of human freedom. I still feel that what the question will come down to in the future is whether we really have the freedoms that are set out in this bill, is whether we are prepared to respond immediately to the challenge and to fight for them.


Mr, Jones:: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Douglas Mason Fisher: Yes.


Mr. Jones:: Are you suggesting that the contribution Canadians made in the defence of freedom in the first and second world wars is inconsiderable?


Douglas Mason Fisher: That has nothing to do with what I am saying. I happened to take part in the last particular struggle myself. However, that matter is irrelevant to this particular argument I am making. I am talking about our internal struggles at home. External forces are something that we shall always have to be prepared to marshal ourselves against. I am worrying about internal things. There are many countries in the world that have dictatorial governments and which have ringing declarations of freedom. I am wondering whether, in the hearts and the feelings of our people, we have the kind of outraged reaction that will jump and respond immediately. That is the best bill of rights that one has. While I have doubts about the bill, 1 think there is something in each of our traditions, the American and the British,
Human Rights
that in co-operation or in co-ordination will yet come to our aid in times of stress like that.
In conclusion, I can see nothing terribly wrong with this bill; it is just going to be, to a degree, a disappointment. If this is a step toward a much larger conception, then I think the Prime Minister should tell us how he is moving toward that larger conception. There have been all kinds of suggestions as to how we should do it, and I should like to hear from the right hon. gentleman what are his plans step by step.
I cannot help but remark that if the Prime Minister had moved quickly with regard to this particular measure when he came to power he did have the kind of feeling and support in the country which would have enabled him to put through a much more thorough and a much more ringing bill of rights than we have at present.


Mr. McGee:: May I put a question to the hon. member? Would he not agree that the reaction of the Canadian people to the pipe line debate is a clear indication of how Canadians react to a suggestion of the restriction of freedom?


Douglas Mason Fisher: That is the kind of thing to warm one's heart, but I can only say in answer to the hon. member that despite the pipe line debate the situation which was involved in that debate has still not been resolved.
(Translation):


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I did not want to miss this unique opportunity of saying a few words to state the views of my constituents on a subject of vital and historical importance.
Some jurists and lawyers, more competent than I am, have expressed their views on the legal aspect of the bill. I shall only make a few remarks as a member of this house and as a Canadian citizen.
Mr. Speaker, I must congratulate those who took part in this debate and who did not make a political issue out of the principle of this bill respecting fundamental human freedoms.
But, Mr. Speaker, it is also unfortunate that some members in this house took advantage of such a great opportunity that is given to us to resort to petty politics.


Mr. Denis:: We are used to that.


Georges-J. Valade: In the province of Quebec, we live in an atmosphere of complete freedom.


An hon. Member:: Since June 22.

Human Rights


Georges-J. Valade: The province ot Quebec has been, in the history of our country, a stronghold of individual and human freedoms.
For instance, I represent, for the most part, a population of new Canadians, all people that I meet very often, and they never miss an opportunity of reminding me that they would not want to live under other skies than those of Quebec. Because, they say, it is in that province that they have experienced their full personal development and in that same province that they have known the benefit of complete freedom.
In fact, a closer look at the political history of the province of Quebec reveals that the rights of the minorities in the matter of schools, of religion and their freedom of speech have always been fully respected.
Earlier, I understood the implication made by the hon. member for Port Arthur tMr. Fisher). He undertook to cast some doubt on the meaning ascribed by French Canadians to liberty.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I personally had the advantage of receiving an education which took me outside the boundaries of the province of Quebec. I have been educated in Nova Scotia, among other places. I have had the opportunity of visiting some relatives in British Columbia. I have noticed, according to the views of the people I met, the regard they had for French Canadians because, they said, those people really understood what fundamental freedom really is.
In the whole history of our province, we have never restricted in any way the freedom of individuals, and I deplore the fact that the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) should have seized upon an opportunity such as this to thrash old straw, to open old sores, by recalling unfortunate events-the whole thing forming a nauseous Liberal hodgepodge-the sole purpose of which was to create doubt in the minds of all Canadians.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: Why didn't you eat some?


Georges-J. Valade: Because your hodge-podge was no good. The hon. member for Laurier made a speech which marked him as a saboteur of national unity. He has cast doubt upon the good understanding which exists between all Canadians of this country.
Two years ago, I had the opportunity of inviting several members of the house to visit the province of Quebec, especially the metropolis of Canada, Montreal, one of whose constituencies I represent here.

I can assure you that this meeting of those two ethnic groups resulted in the consolidation of friendships and created in the public a feeling of national unity such as we never witnessed before under the administration of our Liberal friends, about which we had heard so much.
Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member for Laurier would have had the courage to make his ungracious speech of this afternoon when he was a cabinet member at the time his party was in office.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: He did so time and again.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: He was a poltroon.


Georges-J. Valade: I also regret the reference made by the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Brassard)-whom I respect for his generally frank opinions-and his suggestions about the coercion that the former government of the province of Quebec applied, or is said to have applied to the population of that province.
Mr. Speaker, let me tell the hon. member that the day after the election of the Liberal party in the province of Quebec, we felt the effects of the dictator's boots among our civil servants and in the public administration of the province of Quebec.


Joseph Aimé Roger Parizeau: Now, that is true.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Dictators.


Georges-J. Valade: I even could reveal some cases which might hurt our friends in the opposition. Among others, I might tell you that a mental institution in Montreal has been refused drugs for one of its patients. Order was given to return those drugs to the company which had supplied them because they had not been ordered by the new Liberal government, which was beginning to impose its dictatorship.
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals like to speak of that magnificent concept of freedom which Canadian citizens enjoyed under the former administration. Now, I remember that, at the start of the last war, and during hostilities, thousands of Canadians of German, Italian, Polish or other origin were interned haphazardly, solely by reason of their nationality. They were mostly people who had been living in this country for three or four generations, perhaps. Nobody took the trouble to inquire if those people really were in the pay of a foreign spy organization. After merely consulting a list of names, they were interned like the vilest of criminals. That was how the Liberals interpreted the concept of freedom. That is what the Liberals tried to preach to us at the time of the old regime.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Not to mention the famous debate on the pipeline.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Crocodile tears.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont (Mr. Deschate-lets) says crocodile tears. The Liberals shed crocodile tears some in 1957 and 1958, and they will shed some more at the next federal election.


An hon. Member:: Pull out your handkerchiefs.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, during the debate on a bill of such capital importance, I wonder whether it was really necessary for those irresponsible politicians, anxious to make the headlines, to have opened old sores caused by certain unfortunate events which have happened in the course of our history. I do not know of any doctor who would have the morbid curiosity of examining a patient on whom he would have already operated, and who would tell him: "I am going to cut you open again in case there is still some infection."
Mr. Speaker, that is what the Liberal party did during the discussion of this very important bill of rights. If, in the past, Canadians have had to suffer from persecutions or injustices, or if they have been deprived of their fundamental freedoms, it is precisely because similar principles were not set up in our statutes. In other words, the bill of rights is the confirmation of the spirit of the fathers of confederation.
While we are now discussing a bill, whose fundamental principles aim at guaranteeing and renewing in the minds of Canadians the rights and liberties which are theirs, the Liberal members, as a result of their systematic obstruction and desire to make the headlines, have cast doubts in the public as to their attitude towards their fundamental freedom. And as mentioned a moment ago by the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomp-tion-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon), a striking example is the pipe-line debate, the bill introduced by Mr. C. D. Howe-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Closure, closure again.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, in introducing this bill of rights, Canada is acting as a standard bearer for human rights in the whole world. If small countries now under the heel of dictators had had in their statutes such a humanitarian measure as the bill be-
Human Rights
fore us, millions of human beings would not be deprived of such fundamental rights.
Perhaps I might also advise my friends in the opposition to call on their friends in Quebec and Newfoundland-who may not remain in power very long-and ask them, after the passing of this bill, to promote this spirit of freedom that we demand and that we want every Canadian to share in. I feel the provinces I have mentioned would have much to gain by enacting such a bill.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: You are talking like a centralizer.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, we have no lessons to take from those former centralizers who held the province of Quebec under their centralizing heel for 20 years.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Closure always closure.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker there is an old saying you probably know and that I should like to repeat at this point:	"Beloved
liberty, what sacrifices have not been made in thy name?"
It is on that point Mr. Speaker that I have some misgivings. I fear-and that is my only concern-that some people may abuse the privileges provided by this bill of rights. I wonder if the communists, or the leaders of subversive movements, would not abuse those privileges, as was done in the United States by claiming privileges under the fifth amendment. I am sure that with a leader like the Prime Minister, this spirit will not prevail once we have adopted this bill of human rights.
At this point of my remarks, Mr. Speaker, may I quote an excerpt from an article published in Relations of February 1959.
Duties and rights are correlative. However, the obligation to respect the equal right of his fellows forbids man to make arbitrary use of his rights. Whatever the circumstance or the situation in which he finds himself, man must have the possibility of discharging his essential duties; this is a right which could not be legitimately taken from him. God has created the worldly goods for the use of man.
No geographical distance, nor civilization, culture, or government differences, could break the unity of the human race under the dependence of God, and none of those factors allows refusal to any nation of adequate access to the resources of this world.
Mr. Speaker, following this quotation, I draw my inspiration from the fundamental idea that the introduction of this bill of rights has raised in this house.

Human Rights
Before concluding, may I point out to the house that the Conservative party has been and continues to be the symbol of equity, justice and national unity in Canada. Where the Liberal party has divided, the Conservative party has united. I am quite happy to support this bill today. In doing so, I know that I join with those who spoke before me. On behalf of my constituents, of the new Canadians that I represent in this house, I thank the Prime Minister for having thought of guaranteeing their exercise of those fundamental principles.


Azellus Denis: Mr. Speaker, following the speech we have just heard, we could be inclined to think that the provincial election is not over, and that its result is hard to take.
The hon. member who spoke before me constantly dealt with provincial elections, giving the impression that he had probably not read the bill of rights and that he only wanted to mourn the failure of the Union Nationale.
I am positive that the complaints made against him are unfounded. I do not blame the hon. member for St. Mary (Mr. Valade) who states that this is a bill of rights which covers only federal matters because, when this bill was drafted, the Union Nationale was in office. Then, it is no secret that as far as freedom of the press, freedom of speech and security of the person are concerned, especially in the province of Quebec under the previous administration, only those who were in favour of or close to the administration could enjoy that security, or freedom of the press, or freedom of speech and of opinion.
The proof of that is the last electoral campaign when the province was flooded with tons of publicity material of equivocal meaning, of more or less exact meaning, conceived to mislead the public opinion. For instance, the statements made in 1953 were reported and printed during the last election in foot-high characters with these figures at the bottom: 3-5-35; that is, the third day of the fifth month of the year 1935.
Well, I do not think that the Union Nationale had to complain about freedom of the press. I do not believe that the Union Nationale had to complain about the freedom of speech, the freedom of the individual or of his security. In proof of this, I have only to think of the election in the Montreal-Laurier riding where goons broke into at least 25 polls-

(Text):



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Major C. Lamoureux, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Right Honourable the Deputy Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable house in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the house went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker informed the house that the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:
An act for the relief of Joan Emily Wills Meehan.
An act for the relief of Vivian Phyllis Steine Skolnik.
An act for the relief of Erwin Thomas Steppan.
An act for the relief of George William Douglas Edmonds.
An act to incorporate Northern Pipe Line Company.
An act to incorporate Allstate Insurance Company of Canada.
An act to incorporate Western Surety Company.
An act to incorporate The Wawanesa Mutual Life Insurance Company.
An act respecting The Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company.
An act to amend the Old Age Security Act.
An act to authorize the Construction and Maintenance of a Bridge across the St. Lawrence River at or near the Town of LaSalle, in the Province of Quebec.
An act respecting the International Boundary Commission.
An Act to amend the Emergency Gold Mining to meet certain capital expenditures of the Canadian National Railways System for the period from the 1st day of January, 1960 to the 30th day of June, 1961, and to authorize the guarantee by Her Majesty of certain securities to be issued by the Canadian National Railway Company.
An act to amend An Act to amend the Railway Act.
An act to amend the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act.
An act to amend the Estate Tax Act.
An act respecting the International Development Association.
An act to amend the Customs Tariff.
An act to amend the Excise Tax Act.
An act to amend the War Veterans Allowance Act, 1952.
An act respecting the Construction by the Canadian National Railway Company of certain railway terminal facilities at and in the vicinity of the City of Toronto.
Mr. Speaker:: The house will now resume the business which was interrupted by the arrival of the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod.



HUMAN RIGHTS


[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.
At six o'clock the house took recess.

AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
(Translation):
Azellus Denis: Mr. Speaker, when the house adjourned, I was trying to answer the gratuitous statements of the hon. member for St. Mary (Mr. Valade) who was complaining about some liberties enjoyed in the province of Quebec. I rose in order to prove in this house that the opposite situation prevailed in that province before the new Liberal government took over. I was illustrating the statement that not only was there freedom of the press, freedom of association, and freedom of protection against provincial authorities, but there even was an abuse of those powers, and, among other things, I shall mention the many pages of advertisements in the press which were misleading as to governmental legislation. For instance, there was a statement by the Union Nationale that family allowances were paid by the province of Quebec. That was far from impairing the freedom of the press, because the statement went so far as to say that family allowances were paid by Quebec. And the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) who is here in his seat knows very well that family allowances are paid entirely by the federal government but that, by making use of and even abusing, the freedom of the press, the Union Nationale boldly stated in those full page advertisements, not to say in many hundreds of full page advertisements, in every paper, that federal allowances were being paid out by Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, you must be aware of the way elections are held in the province of Quebec. I trust that from now on, there will be some change in this respect. It was rather difficult to prosecute the authors of that publicity. As a matter of fact-


Georges-J. Valade: Talk about the bill of rights. You should be dealing with the bill before us. (Text):


Mr. Speaker:: This bill, of course, is limited to matters within the jurisdiction of the federal government. I realize that there has been
Human Rights
a very broad discussion of events both within the federal and provincial jurisdictions throughout Canada. But it seems to me that the hon. member is confining his remarks completely to rather local issues in the province of Quebec which would not be relevant to this bill.
(Translation):


Azellus Denis: Mr. Speaker, I realize that you are right, but I think you were not in your chair when the hon. member for St. Mary spoke in the house, and almost exclusively discussed the last provincial elections.


Georges-J. Valade: That is not true.


Azellus Denis: So I think I am entitled to answer him, at least briefly, before coming to the bill of rights. If the hon. Conservative member for St. Mary is entitled to discuss provincial elections, particularly when the matter before us is freedom of speech, I respectfully submit, Mr. Speaker, that I have a right to show in a few words the kind of freedom we enjoy in the province of Quebec, and in what way this bill of rights could help, in view of what has been going on in the province for a number of years.
In this bill of rights mentions is made of an individual's right to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property, the right to enjoy the protection of the law. Now in the last provincial elections-


Mr. Johnson:: The right to empty ministers' briefcases.


Azellus Denis: If the hon. member wants to make a speech, I would ask him to await his turn. I am sorry his brother's party has been defeated, but in any event, if the hon. member has a speech to make, let him go ahead, because we are precisely discussing freedom of speech.


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: Why don't you make yours?


Azellus Denis: I find, Mr. Speaker, that not only do we enjoy freedom of speech in this house, but that we also enjoy freedom to interrupt at will instead of standing up and making a speech like a man. And when the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon)-who is a fine one for interrupting-talks about closure, I think if really the Liberal party applied the rule of closure and decided to gag someone, the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm would be the first, because he keeps interrupting all the time and making all kinds of remarks-

Human Rights


Georges-J. Valade: Why don't you talk about the bill of rights?


Azellus Denis: We shall come to the bill, Mr. Speaker, we shall discuss the bill dealing-


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: Tell us about the Picard bill and the Guindon bill.


Azellus Denis: Let me give an example of the process of law we enjoyed in the last provincial elections. In front of my own house, 15 cars came up, filled with crooks and thugs, including provincial police officers-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I listened to the hon. member for a few minutes, and I can tell him that what he is now discussing has nothing to do with the bill. The matter of violations or infractions to the law has nothing to do with the bill of rights.


Azellus Denis: What I wanted to tell you, Mr. Speaker, is that this bill of rights applies only at the federal level, and not at the provincial level, which makes it incomplete and inadequate, because it can be efficient only if it applies to matters coming within the jurisdiction of and in agreement with the province. Consequently, I think that when the provincial police deal inadequately with the protection and security of people, it is preferable to call a federal-provincial conference before introducing a bill of rights which applies only at the federal level.
That is why we had that case where we had to call upon the R.C.M.P. during the last election.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Could the hon. member realize that the matter of contravention of existing laws has no relation whatever with this bill? The case here is whether, in any law, fundamental rights of people are violated or not. It is not a case of application or non-application of existing laws.


Azellus Denis: Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what I wanted to say. As long as this bill, or any other similar bill is not agreed to by provinces; as long as there is no agreement between provincial governments and the federal government with regard to a bill of rights, we shall always have the difficulties we have known in the last provincial election. That is why I gave those examples, because such situations occurred and were publicized in the papers, and all Quebec papers, as well as other papers referred to the matter every day.

We suffered so much from that lack of protection that I would like the provinces to participate in the drafting of a bill of rights, in such a way that it be couched in terms agreeable to all provinces, and after agreement with them. I find this bill inadequate, and I am not the one who started this discussion about that; it is the hon. member for St. Mary who started by complaining that the new provincial government was preventing drugs from being distributed to hospitals.
You were there, Mr. Speaker, when the member for St. Mary said drugs were lacking in hospitals; so, it is only fair-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member allow a question?


Azellus Denis: The hon. member will have all liberty to do so when I have concluded my remarks, because I know he never misses a chance to praise the government, rightly or wrongly, and you know it, Mr. Speaker.
What I mean is that medicine ran short before the election because it was given to all those who had pink cards; so all those who were ill were cared for free of charge by the hon. member's friends.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think that the hon. member is outside the subject, and that he confuses licence with liberty. He is now in the field of licence. He confuses liberty and licence.


Azellus Denis: Indeed, it is not a matter of licences for taverns or night clubs. I am not in the know, as I suppose he is. At all events, I know that he is forgiven the last tears he is shedding for a defeat he surely deserved, since the people is always the most intelligent: Vox populi, vox Dei.
Freedom exists to such an extent in the province of Quebec that even in the riding of the hon. member for St. Mary, which is next to the riding of St. James, some people during the ballot counting-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.
(Text):


Mr. Nesbitt:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I say that I was wondering whether Your Honour would ask the hon. member to modulate his voice. I should like to hear his speech but he is drowning out the simultaneous translation.

(Translation):


Azellus Denis: Mr. Speaker, I thought that my voice was powerful enough to be heard even by the deaf and I should very much like the hon. members from the province of Quebec to hear my remarks. If they find the truth too hard to take, I would urge them to leave and wait until to-morrow to read in Hansard what I intend to say in this house. This is a free country, we have a right to freedom and when we are discussing a bill dealing with human rights and fundamental freedoms, I think that the hon. members on the other side of this house are ill-advised in trying to prevent opposition members from expressing their opinions on this matter.
In order to establish the need for an agreement between the provinces-
(Text):


James Stanley Speakman: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, may I say that we are not getting the French translation of the hon. member's remarks, and I feel that we should have it.


An hon. Member:: You are not missing
anything.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: He is using the kind of language that cannot be translated.
(Translation):


Azellus Denis: Mr. Speaker, we have a simultaneous interpretation system, and if some members do not understand French I would advise them to use their ear-piece so that it does not get rusty.
Mr. Speaker, I resume any remarks tending to establish the need for a meeting between the provinces and the federal government in order to draft a bill applicable to all the provinces, to the whole country and not only to the federal field.
As far as the provincial elections act is concerned, for example, more freedom is allowed in some provinces and less in others. The hon. member for St. Mary who spoke before me has only to remember that in 1957 a recount was granted in St. James constituency, adjoining his own, and that in the course of that recount ballots marked in the name of Mr. Valade, who is the present member for St. Mary, were found in the ballot boxes.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: For the last time-
Human Rights


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: He can't help it if he is popular.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. For the last time, I remind the hon. member for St. Denis that we are discussing the question of human fundamental rights and I hope that he will understand.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, if you allow me to say a few words on this point of order, I would ask you to read section 2, subsection (a) of Bill No. C-79, which reads as follows:
The right of the individual to life, liberty, security of the person ...
The question the hon. member for St. Denis (Mr. Denis) is dealing with is exactly this, personal security, since he is reporting on certain events which took place in his own constituency, and I feel that he has the right to discuss them under this section which has been explained to us this morning by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton), since this bill provides not only for the protection of a personal right but for a fundamental right. In fact, if it were adopted it could be used as a guarantee.
We, on this side of the house, have the right to express our views and the point the hon. member for St. Denis is trying to make, is that personal freedom has been tampered with in his constituency. I am sure that in dealing with this matter his remarks are in order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: May I suggest to the hon. member for Laurier that it is in order to discuss the inadequacy of an act with regard to the rights of individuals, but if we deal with the violation of a law which in itself does not encroach upon the rights of the individuals, it is out of order. That is the difference.
The hon. member for St. Denis is now dealing with a violation of provincial laws, which has nothing to do with the matter of fundamental human rights.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make another remark.
The hon. member for St. Denis is dealing with what happened, and not with what you have just suggested. In discussing what has happened in his own constituency, he is telling the house that an attempt has been made to encroach upon the personal freedom of individuals who went to the polls and whose

Human Rights
rights have been violated, a thing that has happened not only in his constituency, but in many others also.


Mr, Johnson:: That happened in your own constituency.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: May I suggest to the hon. member for Laurier that he took advantage of the occasion to make a statement of facts and not to raise an argument of law on the point of order. Murders are committed in this country, but the inadequacy of the Criminal Code is not involved.
It is now a matter of discussing a bill having to do with the respect of fundamental freedoms and human rights and the hon. member for St. Denis knows perfectly in what sense I consider that the discussions of provincial laws, and of general laws, may be in order.
I therefore ask the hon. member for St. Denis to comply with the instructions I gave him.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege-


Azellus Denis: That is precisely what I wanted to say-


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege. Just now the hon. member for St. Denis, by his gratuitous, and even irregular statement, has cast a reflection on my personal integrity.
He said that votes had been registered in my name in the riding of St. James, and I think it is my duty to protest strongly such a statement. I challenge the hon. member for St. Denis to repeat that accusation outside the house so that I may prosecute him before the courts, as I did my former opponent. I challenge him publicly to reiterate his charges.


Azellus Denis: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the hon. member for St. Mary, I must tell him that I never charged him with having gone to vote in the riding of St. James. On the contrary, I said that his friends had shown a little too much zeal and that they had crossed the limit of his riding to go and vote in the neighbouring one.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.


Azellus Denis: Mr. Speaker, I was just saying-


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. On a question of privilege; because the hon. member for St. Denis repeated his statement with regard to myself, and I am asking him to withdraw his words, because this is a reflection on my integrity. He even talks about some irregular dealings on the part of citizens who have given me their support during the election and who elected me in the constituency of St. Mary.
I ask the hon. member to modify his gratuitous, unreasonable, inconsistent and dishonest statement.


Azellus Denis: Mr Speaker, I did not accuse the hon. member for St. Mary of having committed any irregularities, but there is proof in the Montreal court that, when ballots were counted, there were some marked with the name "Valade".
I never charged the hon. member with having proceeded to vote in the constituency of St. James. I believe he is intelligent enough to have voted for himself if he had wanted to put in one, two or even three ballots; but I was merely trying to prove that the bill of rights will not put a stop to terrorism, nor will it prevent situations from arising like that which has been deplored in the riding of Montreal-Laurier, when I personally saw people attempting to fill 25 ballot boxes-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is at it again. It is understood that the purpose of this act is certainly not to prevent the violation of laws.
The only way to prevent the violation of laws, the hon. member knows it very well, is through their enforcement by police forces.
What he is saying now is quite out of order and I would ask him, if he has nothing relevant to say, to remain in his seat.


Azellus Denis: Mr. Speaker, I think you are right in preventing me from speaking about the election but I must point out to you that the hon. member for St. Mary made no bones about speaking of it and I take note of the fact that he was not prevented from doing so.
I shall now deal with another statement of the hon. member for St. Mary. He said the former War Measures Act had allowed the detention of immigrants without any reason.
I wonder if, in speaking the way he does, he does not want to blame the present Prime Minister who, during the war, was a private member and was sitting on the committee of defence, on the committee of defence regulations, and who was never opposed to the actions taken by the government of the time.

I wonder whether the hon. member for St. Mary has more experience or is more qualified than the Prime Minister.
I would ask the Prime Minister if he has more confidence in the advices and decisions of the hon. member for St. Mary than in his own decisions, and in the attitudes he took during the last war?
In my opinion, the hon. member for St. Mary shows more consideration for a few immigrants who have been detained, than he has shown when he was saying during the last election campaign that unemployment was the result of immigration.
Today, in whimpering, the hon. member for St. Mary says we have been brutal towards two or three immigrants during the war.
I would ask the hon. member for St. Mary whether he has changed his mind.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege. The hon. member for St. Denis is distorting what I said. I never referred to immigrants, I referred to new Canadians, who had been in Canada for two or three generations, and the hon. member for St. Denis (Mr. Denis), according to his custom, is distorting my words, or at least is interpreting them wrongly.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I must point out to the hon. member for St. Mary that there is no question of privilege here, but only a matter of interpretation of his own words.
If, after the remarks of the hon. member for St. Denis, the hon. member for St. Mary wants to take issue with some of his points, he will have every opportunity to do so. In the meantime, the hon. member for St. Denis has the floor.


Azellus Denis: When the hon. member for St. Mary made his speech, we let him talk. I should like to be shown the same courtesy.
When the Leader of the Opposition rose in this house to discuss war measures and this bill, he wanted precisely to prevent any infractions in the matter of imprisonment, of which the hon. member for St. Mary had been complaining. The Leader of the Opposition then stated that the bill of rights did not go far enough in restricting the right to arbitrary imprisonment and exile.
At that point, the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Walker) rose to say this, and I quote from page 5738 of Hansard.
Human Rights
It is the Minister of Public Works who is speaking:
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.


David James Walker: May I ask a question? Is it not true that you want a post office?


Azellus Denis: I beg your pardon?


David James Walker: Is it not true that you want a post office?


Azellus Denis: If we need a post office, we will not ask a plumber. I will see the postmaster who, I believe, is well aware of the good things that are done and especially of the wrong ones that are done in this field.
The Minister of Public Works was endorsed also by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton). This is what he said, according to page 5789 of Hansard:
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 wonder if those hon. ministers have read the bill or if they talked through their hats.
For their enlightenment, I will remind them that the same bill, at section 6, reads as follows:
Section 6 of the War Measures Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
What is the meaning of the War Measures Act? I put the question to the Minister of Public Works and to the Minister of Justice.
Is the War Measures Act mentioned or not in the bill?
Not only is it mentioned, but in this bill, at section 6, is repealed a provision of the War Measures Act which is replaced by the following:
Sections 3, 4 and 5 shall come into force only upon the issue of a proclamation of the governor in council declaring that war, invasion or insurrection, real or apprehended, exists.
Mr. Speaker, if the bill contains nothing on war measures, I do not understand the meaning of this section.
What I do know, however, is that it seems that two ministers have not read the bill. Or still, they may be shocked by the suggestion of the Leader of the Opposition.
Precisely, in order to eliminate the dangers of illegal detention or arbitrary exile on the

Human Rights
part of the government, I feel that the Leader of the Opposition was entirely justified in mentioning that point, since section 6 of the bill of rights covers more than three quarters of a page on that subject.
I quote now the statement of the Hon. Mr. Pearson, which I find at page 5651 of Hansard of July 1, 1960:
I suggest we should now go further. I suggest that any bill of rights which this house in its wisdom passes should contain a provision limiting the powers given to the governor in council under the War Measures Act by expressly excluding the power by order in council to deprive any Canadian citizen of his citizenship.
That is what the hon. member for St. Mary (Mr. Valade) is complaining about. That-
(Text):


Mr. Martin (Timmins):: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, since I am one of the hon. members of this house who are unfortunately unable to understand the hon. member, and since, apparently, the translation apparatus is not working, I should like to ask the government in view of the importance of this debate if the discussion could be adjourned to the next sitting of the house.


Azellus Denis: Mr. Speaker, I was just listening to the translation as the hon. member was speaking and it was working. Perhaps I could be permitted to continue.
(Translation):
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that tomorrow, if the weather is bad, the hon. member for Timmins (Mr. Martin) might spend a pleasant day in reading over my speech. He will note in doing so that the two ministers of the crown who stated that there was no question of the War Measures Act were mistaken. He also will see that the hon. member for St. Mary, who was aggrieved because, in the past, some people were wrongly detained, had no reason to complain, as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) precisely suggested that such detentions which might be unfair, be prevented or stopped. He will see, moreover, that the two ministers, the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Walker), who called himself a plumber, and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton), who maintained that there was no question of the War Measures Act, were mistaken. I am asking them, as well as the hon. member for Timmins, to read over the bill of rights, and more particularly section 6, where it is clearly mentioned that:
Section 6 of the War Measures Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
And then he may read the explanatory notes. Now, that amply justifies the

Leader of the Opposition when he speaks of the War Measures Act. Now, the Leader of the Opposition even says that the bill of rights does not go far enough and does not sufficiently protect a citizen in his right of citizenship. That is what the hon. member for St. Mary is complaining about.
I believe that the Minister of Public Works would do well to spend the night reading over the bill of rights, and not to devote all his efforts to his department; if he takes off his blinkers and looks ahead to see what the bill is proposing to do, he will realize whether there is some question of the War Measures Act or not. He could read with particular attention the suggestion made by the Leader of the Opposition, in order to prevent any abuse with regard to denial of rights, Canadian citizenship and detention of persons for any reason whatever. And, for the information of the Minister of Public Works, I will read again that suggestion, that I would ask the government to adopt, not only because it was made by the Leader of the Opposition, but because it is logical, full of common sense, and because it should be included in the bill of rights. I quote:
I think we should go further. I say that any bill of rights that the house, in its wisdom, might adopt, should include a provision designed to restrain the powers conferred upon the governor in council, under the War Measures Act, in excluding from those powers that of depriving any Canadian citizens of his citizenship by order in council.
Well, that fine suggestion of the Leader of the Opposition, those suggestions made in regard to the provinces, would allow freedom of speech, security, freedom of the press, in other words, freedom itself, to apply not only in federal matters but also in provincial matters. So, at election time, or at any other time, we would be able to benefit from the protection of our police, be it provincial, municipal or federal, which is not the case at present, and that security will exist not only in one, two, three or four provinces, but in the ten provinces of Canada.
We are all Canadian citizens, from coast to coast, and there is no reason why a dictator should do as he wishes in one or two of the ten provinces, while peace and security prevail in the others. There must be no dictators or terrorists at the head of Canadian citizens, but only persons responsible for the protection of the citizenship of our people.


Maurice Bourget: Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear. Hear.


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: That is one way of getting applause.


Maurice Bourget: We had so much of it on June 22 last.


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: Yes, under false pretences.


Maurice Bourget: It is not what the population of Quebec thought.
(Tecct):


Murdo William Martin: Mr. Speaker, I did not want to interrupt and embarrass the hon. member for St. Denis (Mr. Denis) but apparently the translation system is still not working. For the reasons I have given I move, seconded by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Regier):
That this debate be adjourned to the next sitting of the house.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am informed that the translation system cannot be repaired tonight. The hon. member for Timmins seconded by the hon. member for Burnaby-Co-quitlam has moved that for this reason the debate be adjourned. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. May I bring to your attention this fact. I do not think it is in order to interrupt a discussion such as this because of a technical difficulty in the translation system, which as the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) has said was working in the middle and at the end of the speech. My friend the hon. member for Levis (Mr. Bourget) indicates that he intends to speak briefly. Under the circumstances it seems to me the debate should not be adjourned.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: This is a new point of order. This is the first time it has happened in the history of this parliament. I understand that motions cannot be made when another speaker has the floor. The hon. member for Timmins (Mr. Martin) did not have the floor at the time and therefore I must recognize the hon. member for Levis (Mr. Bourget).
(Translation):


Maurice Bourget: Mr. Speaker, the bill before the house aims at the recognition and the declaration of human rights and fundamental freedoms. In discussing human rights, we cannot help thinking of the rights of our country and our provinces. So, it is important that such a bill should not be adopted in a rush, but that it should be well discussed and considered. Besides, we all agree that
Human Rights
those rights and freedoms already exist and, consequently, nobody will be deprived of them even if this bill is not adopted this year. Hurried action could bring about bitter deceptions.
I do not intend, Mr. Speaker, to deal at length with this bill, for I believe the hon. Leader of the Opposition, in his wonderful speech, as well as other Liberal members, have revealed exactly our party's views on this matter. However, I would like to take this opportunity to reply to certain statements made by the Miniser of Justice (Mr. Fulton) in his speech.
First, he was astonished by the stand of the Liberal party on this bill because, he said, the Liberals had been opposed for 22 years to a bill of human rights in Canada. In that connection, I would remind him that we never opposed such legislation, indeed we were in favour of such a plan, as our leader, Mr. St. Laurent, indicated at the time. However, we held that the people had to be educated in that respect before we could take the chance of doing something that might be premature and might do more harm than good. We were also of the opinion that the courts of justice as well as the liberal atmosphere prevailing in Canada were sufficient protection for our rights.
Indeed this principle is recognized by the Conservative party itself in section 2 of the bill, where it is stated that the human rights and fundamental freedoms listed have always existed. Moreover, I understand that this fact was recognized by several Conservative members who spoke in this debate.
Therefore, if the Prime Minister unduly insists on passing this bill of rights before adequately consulting the people who can express the opinion of our democracy on the subject, perhaps it will prove that some of us were right in suspecting that his main purpose was to make political hay.
I should like at this point to discuss the two main features of the debate that preceded the resolution passed by the Quebec legislature and directed at the Prime Minister of Canada.
First, far from opposing the enactment of a bill of rights by the Canadian parliament, the Quebec legislature wants such a document to be drafted in such a way as to receive the approval of the provinces, and to express the opinion of the Canadian people as a whole.
Second, the Quebec legislature, in spite of its sincere respect for the leader of the Canadian nation, refuses to accept the claim of the Right Hon. Mr. Diefenbaker to the effect

Human Rights
that the federal parliament could pass an effective bill of rights without seriously invading the rights of the provinces.
At this point, Mr. Speaker, I just wonder what would be the position taken by the Conservative members from Quebec if a Liberal government, rather than a Conservative government, had introduced a similar bill without prior consultation with the provinces. I can just hear them all raising a hue and cry and again accusing the Liberal party of violating the autonomy of the provinces. Well, there are now 50 Conservative members from Quebec in this house, and not one of them has yet objected to this bill or asked the Prime Minister, before introducing it, to consult the provinces. In the circumstances, the latter should really have their say, because when you refer to the rights of citizens, to the rights of our country, it means the rights of every citizen in every province.
I hope that in the future, they will not accuse the Liberal party of infringing upon the autonomy of the provinces, but that they will be able to point at centralists around their own leader who today is attempting to have such important legislation passed without consulting the provinces.
We are being told again and again-the Minister of Justice said it himself-that to consult the provinces would delay the passage of such a measure. Well, it is two years already since this measure was introduced in the house. It seems to me that in two years we had enough time to ask all the provinces for their views.
How can we accept then the statement of the Minister of Justice to the effect that this bill had been drafted in such a way that it could be framed and hung on the walls of our schools, of our churches and of all our institutions?
I am inclined to believe, also on the basis of the various reactions which followed the introduction of this bill, that nobody will rush to the printing bureau to get copies of this bill. Oh, perhaps I should make an exception for the rush of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Walker) who intends to distribute 40,000 copies of it to his voters.
The Minister of Justice, Mr. Speaker, added that the Liberal opposition solves its problems through centralization. That again, Mr. Speaker, is an unfounded statement contrary to the facts-


Edmund Davie Fulton: Not at all.


Maurice Bourget: -because the Liberal
party has always looked after the regions and the provinces of Canada more efficiently than the Conservative party. That is why in the last 60 years, or since the beginning of this century, the Conservative party has won only four elections in this country. Besides, our stand on this bill shows clearly that, far from wanting to centralize, we want to give the provinces the opportunity to express themselves on this bill.
At no time has the Liberal party tried to impose its views on the provinces; far from it. The present attitude of the government regarding this bill shows us clearly the way the present cabinet intends to handle the next federal-provincial conferences.
The Minister of Justice has also criticized the Leader of the Opposition for having said that our freedoms are not guaranteed by words, even if those words are written in a constitution, or even less, in the wording of an ordinary, normal act of parliament.
The minister certainly did not understand that the Leader of the Opposition meant by that, that we want to protect our rights and our freedoms by efficient action and means. It seems to me that is a reasonable approach to that problem. The government, on the other hand, is satisfied with listing those rights and does not give any answer to the constructive suggestions made by our leader and other members of our party.
Mr. Speaker, I venture to think that the hon. Prime Minister, on thinking it over, will accept our suggestion for giving this bill mature deliberation in order to make it better known to public opinion and to ensure that it meets with the wishes of the people of Canada.
(Text):


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I must inform the house that if the Prime Minister speaks now he will close the debate.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, my first words must be to thank all hon. members who have participated in this debate. Every opportunity has been given to assure that all who were desirous of making a contribution to the discussion of this important subject should be free to do so. Speaking for myself, for the moment I appreciate to the full the speeches that have been made and the sentiments expressed as an indication that this is a debate on which not only members of this house and not only Canadians of this generation but those to come will look back upon as one of the milestones for freedom in Canada.

Freedom grows in the practice of good citizenship. It withers or decays in the apathy or neglect of the citizens of the country. All through the years I have hoped for the day when I would have the privilege of presenting to parliament a subject to be embodied in a bill which would in fact epitomize the freedoms of all Canadians and, in addition thereto, would also assure every Canadian that never again, subject to the exigencies of war, would he or she be denied full recourse to the courts of the land and that never again would an individual be subjected to any course of action that is not in keeping with the tradition of freedom that is ours, inherited from Great Britain and from France, the two mother nations of our country.
I know that in the past there have been occasions when it was not anticipated that the day would come when the House of Commons would be able to vote on this question. In listening to this debate during the last two and a half days the words of Victor Hugo have come back to me as I remember them: "Nothing can withstand the strength of an idea whose time has come." I think that these words of Victor Hugo, as I remember them, represent something of this great occasion when members in all parts of this parliament review the traditions of our past, our heritage of the past, and the quotation that I placed before the house at the conclusion of my remarks the other day, changed to meet the fact that I applied it to Canada, applied it to each and every member of the house and Canadians everywhere, whatever their racial origin or whatever their ancestry may be.
One of the most moving things in this debate, something that underlines the unity of this country, was the participation of so many members of so many varied racial origins. Indeed, one of my prides is the fact that in the membership supporting the government in the house, besides those of British, in its widest sense, or French origin, there are members, representative of at least twelve racial origins, indicating something of the co-operation that has been going on in Canada over the years bringing to Canada those from other lands attracted here, as was my paternal great-grandfather and as were my maternal great-grandparents, to have here that freedom which on this occasion we discuss together and consider as objectively as we can.
It was particularly moving, Mr. Speaker, to hear three or four of the speeches that were made. I am not going to refer to the others. There have been some outstanding speeches made and it would be unfair to
Human Rights
start to designate them. But I do not think anyone will disagree with me when I say that to hear an hon. member born in Italy and another born in Russia of German parentage speaking of freedom and what it means, to hear an hon. member of Chinese origin make such a moving speech today, was something to which I have looked forward throughout the years. Another Canadian born, a Lebanese, made a speech that indicated, as did the other three to which I have referred and all the others that have been made by those of various racial origins, the fact that in Canada today we can say, "I am proud to be a Canadian."
I can speak on this subject of mixed racial origin, Mr. Speaker. Had my name been that of my mother it would have been Campbell Bannerman. I know something of what racial origin has meant in this country in the building of Canadian citizenship. I know something of what it has meant in the past for some to regard those with names of other than British or French origin as not being quite that kind of Canadian that those of British or French origin could claim to be. All through my life I have looked for that day that would bring about in this land a Canadianism which would be proud of its ancestry, that would be able to speak in the clearest tones with that pride of country that comes as a Canadian. All of us know that a mental discrimination has existed in the past. I have experienced something here in the last few days that to me will never be forgotten, a feeling that we are building in this nation a Canadianism in all of the provinces of this country.
When the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Jung) referred to his first speech in this house and what it meant to him as the son of an immigrant to have become a member of parliament; when I listened to the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort (Mr. Rapp), in Canada for some 32 years; when I listened to the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Nasserden); when I listened to the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Badanai); I realized there was something in this debate more than in any other debate that has taken place in my experience in this house. There was something of that vast unity that brings us together as Canadians.
It has been made clear that this legislation covers only those things that are within the ambit of the federal parliament. It has been made clear, not only by words but actually by the bill itself, that in no way does this bill affect those rights or any of those matters that exclusively come within the ambit of the provincial legislatures. There

Human Rights
is, however, a reference to discrimination, and it is an important one. It says this:
(b) the right of the individual to protection of the law without discrimination by reason of race, national origin, colour, religion or sex;
None of us has been completely guiltless in this regard. As I listened to the hon. member for Vancouver Centre I recalled the words that I uttered in this house in 1952, on March 24, when I said this in regard to discrimination, as recorded at page 721 of Hansard:
Discrimination, the denial of the rights of minorities in any way in our country, exerts a vicious influence that, if not met effectively and counteracted by parliament, will ultimately destroy that unity that every racial group in Canada desires. I believe that Canadians must unite in a national and personal dedication to obliterate anything in the nature of racial or religious prejudice. To do that requires not only personal dedication but law standing by to deal with those who fail to realize that the denial of the rights of minorities is the denial of freedom itself. I believe with all my heart that by maintaining the everlasting principles embodied in our fundamental freedoms can Canada achieve eternal understanding, mutual forbearance and unity, for it is as true of nations as it is of individuals, that a house divided against itself cannot stand.
I want to say this to the hon. member for Vancouver Centre. I want him to convey this message to those of his race. Canadians of Chinese origin are law-abiding, loyal and thrifty. The fact that prosecutions are taking place at the moment does not in any way detract from that fact. Indeed they are cooperating in every way to assure that those who endeavoured to thrive by blackmail of their brethren shall be prosecuted. I say to him, and I say to all Canadians of all racial origins that one of the major responsibilities of parliament-parliament cannot do it alone -is to provide the assurance that the heritage that is ours shall be maintained undiminished and shall be handed down to generations yet to come.
So far as discrimination is concerned, discrimination was mentioned by several hon. members, discrimination in connection with hotel accommodation and the like. There is legislation to cover that in the province of Ontario because it is within provincial jurisdiction. The legislation is chapter 28, 1954, an act to promote fair accommodation practices in Ontario. One other province, the province of Saskatchewan, has similar legislation.
When my hon. friends say we do not need a law as long as we have the British heritage, let me point out that at the current session of the British parliament a bill was introduced -the names of the various members who introduced it appear on the back of the bill- to make illegal discrimination to the detriment of any person on the ground of colour,

race or religion in the United Kingdom. In other words, there, too, with all that magnificent heritage and that regard for the people and for the rights, one to the other, in 1960 a bill was introduced to prevent discrimination in this regard. This is further evidence of the fact that whatever the charters of freedom of the past may have been, freedom is not static; freedom is expansive; freedom has to be maintained in each generation in keeping with the changing conditions.
What are civil liberties? What are these fundamental freedoms? They represent the epitome of the dignity of the human being. They are designed to make the average citizen a sovereign in his dealings with the state so long as he keeps within the law. What is now before this house will deny the state the right to interfere with my right to speak within the law. Reference was made by one hon. gentleman today to the fact that there were no cases in Canada for interference federally with the right of a person to speak. I am not going back over that. It would not take long to produce an outstanding example. My right to serve my Maker as my conscience demands, my right to be free to go to the courts of the land, my right to live my own life without regard to my race, my colour or my creed; that, in summary, is the essence of this bill which is before the house.
The question has been asked all through the ages: What is truth? What is freedom? Everyone has his definition of freedom. Mine is a simple one, namely the right to be different while not trespassing on the rights of others, the right to be wrong but not the right to do wrong. That in essence is my understanding. In other words, the strength of freedom is freedom itself under law.
I spoke in this house many years ago and stated that governments enjoying large majorities do not relish action being taken which carries with it any control. This government has such a majority. This government thinks otherwise in order to assure the maintenance of these freedoms, in order to carry out the objectives of the United Nations, which were the encouragement of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms without distinction as to race, language or religion.
There are various views expressed with regard to this bill. It has been said that it does not go far enough and that it goes too far. It has been said that it covers only federal jurisdiction. Someone else says it infringes provincial jurisdiction. It has been said that there is nothing to it, that it is meaningless. Then someone else from the same side says, "We must be careful about what it means for it may indeed provide a lawyer's paradise". Those were the views expressed.

In 1958 I said, and I repeat it today, that this bill will not do everything that I should have liked to see done. However, it is a major step forward in that henceforth Canadians will know that their national rights cannot be disregarded, that the government will have before it an unmistakable and clear declaration that it must at all times preserve and maintain the freedoms in the legislation that it brings before parliament and has passed in parliament. I do not assert-and I want to make this point clear-that I am alone in my feelings in this regard. I would be the last to assert that there have not been others. Mention was made of several of them. I mention others such as the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell), the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton), M. J. Coldwell, Alistair Stewart, Senator Roebuck and there are still others that I could mention. They have said what I have said during the years. Today I am in the position, if the house accepts this bill, of being able to carry into effect many of the abiding principles to which they have referred on many occasions.
I am going to refer in particular to the bill. I am going to deal with the various arguments that were used. One was that we should not really have our rights in writing; others were that the bill should be a constitutional amendment, that it should be in outstanding and grandiloquent language and that it should enumerate economic rights. I am going to deal with each of these items, possibly with greater particularity than did the Minister of Justice, limited as he was in that outstanding speech by the fact that he was limited to 40 minutes. I start by quoting no less an authority than the Canadian Daily Newspaper Publishers Association. In its legislative bulletin of March 17, 1958, it is stated:
The C.D.N.P.A. has often discussed the question of civil rights in the forum of freedom of the press committee meetings.
Their views are expressed in these words.
The great lessons to learn are-
First, that a bill of rights is a great asset, it limits the rights of government to encroach on individual liberties, it advertises these facts to government and citizen alike.
Second, it establishes an acceptable and respectable fighting ground for citizens against the encroachments of governments on their personal liberties.
Third, after having obtained an appropriate bill of rights the public, individually and collectively must be ready and willing to assert their bill of rights privileges and to challenge transgressions by governments.
Fourth, all people must be interested in and support the maintenance of rights of an individual by all other individuals, particularly by unworthy litigants, because it is by the defeat of unworthy
Human Rights
litigants that the detailed powers of the government are enlarged and the rights of all other individuals are diminished or lost.
Finally, it is in the enlightened interest of all newspapers to elucidate these facts, to arouse public interest, to oppose abuses of governmental power, and to arouse public interest and support for individuals who are endeavouring to preserve their rights.
I underline this duty enunciated by the press for the essence of freedom of the press is the assurance that no one's rights shall be transgressed and that, if they are transgressed, the fullest publicity will be given thereto.
The general objective of the bill is to cover the continuing threat to the individual which falls into three classes of matters. First, there is the problem of protecting the individual and his property from the modern administrative process and the need of increasingly complex governmental operations. Second, there is the need to assure ourselves that the classical liberties and freedoms of a modern democratic state are set out with a degree of certainty and completeness that their diffusion among the various branches of the legal system sometimes does not provide. Finally, there is the particular modern concern for all problems of racial or religious discrimination as these problems express themselves both in private and in public law.
The various clauses of this bill are as follows and I doubt whether too many understand them as yet: clause 3 is primarily concerned with questions of procedure; clause 2 is primarily concerned with statements of substance. Clause 3 sets out essential procedures which guarantee the minimum that a decent and free society will tolerate with respect to detention, trials, punishments, fair hearings and the other matters referred to. Clause 2, briefly sets out six paragraphs from (a) to (f)-two rights and four freedoms.
Paragraph (b) is really a modern formulation of the theory of equality before the law. In paragraph (c) we have freedom of religion, which the statute law of some of the provinces and which the judgments of the Supreme Court of Canada in recent years particularly have made perfectly clear is a concept of the essence of society.
Finally, paragraph (f) concerns the freedom of the press. Here again there is a long British-Canadian tradition for preventing the use of government power by licence or censorship to interfere with the printed word. This is the first time in the history of Canada that the freedom of the press has been asserted, and according to the Alberta press case, freedom of the press is one freedom which comes within the authority of the federal parliament.

Human Rights
Then we come to the clause dealing with procedural rights. They say this means nothing. We deny arbitrary detention, imprisonment or exile of any person. I am not going to enter the partisan field at this time, but the exile of Canadians was ordered after the war was over by the simple expedient of a declaration that there was a continuing emergency. That has been one of the great dangers which has developed, first as a result of a case in the privy council in 1920, then following authorities which indicated that if at any time a declaration was made that an emergency existed, then in that case, even though there might be no war, the federal parliament could legislate to destroy the rights of the provinces exclusively under section 92.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the Prime Minister permit a question?


John George Diefenbaker: If the hon. gentleman will allow me to proceed, I will answer any question at the end. I do not want to become involved, as he did, in partisan considerations. I am trying to view this in an objective way.


John Whitney Pickersgill: So am I.


John George Diefenbaker: It will no longer be possible to construe or apply any regulation or law which would impose, or authorize the imposition of, torture, or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The day is past when we can pass legislation that anyone in days of peace can be held incommunicado or denied the right to have counsel. This is the essence of the preservation of the rights of man. No longer can you abolish habeas corpus by order in council or by a declaration that there is an emergency. The British people suspended habeas corpus but they did it under the authority of an act of parliament. It can no longer be done by the simple expression of a majority in parliament that because there is an emergency the law may be set aside. No longer can a person be denied a fair hearing in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice for the determination of his rights and obligations; no longer can a person be deprived of a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal for the determination of any criminal charge against him.
They say this does not mean anything, yet I simply point out the fact that anyone who holds that view has not read or, having read, has not understood the meaning of clause 3. Clause 3 says that all the acts of the parliament of Canada enacted before the commencement of this part-I am leaving out some of the words-and all orders, rules and regulations thereunder at the commencement of this part which are subject to be

repealed, abolished or altered by the parliament of Canada-that is, those things which come within the ambit of parliament and nothing else-shall, unless expressly stated in any act of parliament hereafter enacted, be construed or applied so as not to abrogate, abridge or infringe any of these rights which are set out in the clause.
I can see a tremendous effect, because there are in existence statutes which have the effect of denying those rights, and I shall deal in a moment with the question of interpretation by the courts when these particular measures in which these rights are denied are being interpreted. In the courts dealing with federal legislation, past, present and future, this bill will encourage an attitude toward interpretation. It will emphasize the strategic role which judicial interpretation has in the day to day protection of freedom.
Somebody mentioned here that what we need, and what we have, is a judiciary of which we can be proud, one which is inviolable and impregnable to influence. We have that. But the judiciary can only interpret what parliament has passed, and if parliament, in the discharge of its powers and the authority, does something which the courts feel is improper or a denial of freedom, the courts have no recourse but to follow the legislative enactment. Henceforward, when these matters come before the courts and constitute a denial of these rights that are set forth in this declaration or bill of rights the courts in their interpretation will be required to follow the provisions of clause 3 in the construction of the law.
Those who say this bill is going to be ineffective have not studied its effects. Some of them have started out simply to play down the importance of this measure. I do not want to designate those in the opposition whom I have in mind. Some of those who played it down were rigorous and vigorous opponents throughout the years to action being taken in this regard.
In the draftsmanship of future legislation, orders or regulations the bill will provide more than a technical service. It will require a fresh spirit and attitude because this declaration of parliament demands that the freedoms and the rights therein comprised must always be a primary drafting consideration.
When they say it will have no effect, I am thinking of the other side. I am thinking of the effect that there will be in terms of drafting. I am thinking that there will be many situations where the ability of the draftsmen to meet the needs of administration at the same time ensuring that these

rights and freedoms are safeguarded will require a high degree of administrative imagination and drafting skill.
And finally, to parliament, to the hon. members of this house and succeeding houses, this bill will be a backdrop against which the actions of the future will be played and consideration of the great range of matters coming before parliament will take place. With the knowledge and will of parliament what legislation is passed shall be fitting and shall be consonant with the great objectives of a free society as set forth in this bill of rights.
I know it will be difficult to reconcile the needs of administrative processes in efficient departmental operation with some of the rights set forth in clauses 2 and 3. But after all, to paraphrase what one hon. member said during the course of his remarks, in this complex society in which we move the rights of the individual have been eroded to an increasing extent. The easy road of arbitrary power makes it so convenient to reach the administrative goals that are set whatever the price paid in the process for the value of human rights.
They say it does not mean anything. When they vote I want them to realize that it does. I want them to appreciate that those clauses enumerating these freedoms and democratic rights are of the essence of legislation, past, present and future. Anyone who says that this is a meaningless declaration is either motivated by lack of knowledge or realization of what a bill of rights means, or has other purposes for playing down the importance of this legislation.
We have moved steadily in this direction. For many years we had a public radio system, the C.B.C., and private radio systems in competition one with the other. I criticized that. I said that it was not in accordance with the canons of justice as we understand them that anybody should be placed in the position of being competitor, policeman and adjudicator in his own cause. That is the situation that prevailed through the years. We changed that in the legislation covering radio so that the C.B.C. would not be a judge in its own cause. That was a major step forward to assure that justice shall not be denied to anyone.
I now come to the question whether we should have a constitutional amendment or merely a statute of parliament. Those who were opposed to any bill of rights now say they are in favour of one but it must go further than this one, it must be a constitutional amendment. They know from their own experience that it is not restricted to 79951-0-375
Human Rights
any one province but that except in matters such as economic matters when the financial responsibility is to rest on the federal government the provinces have shown no desire to give up their intrinsic rights constitutionally guaranteed.
I will cite an example of this because some hon. gentlemen seem to have forgotten it. They tell me that things are going to be different now. I ask them to read the Votes and Proceedings of the legislative assembly of the province of Quebec for February 17 last. Following this I received a communication from the clerk of the legislative assembly. There was a unanimous vote; all voted the same way. There is no criticism in this. The same would have happened in other provinces. This was the unanimous decision taken by the legislative assembly of Quebec on February 17 last:
The legislative assembly of the province of Quebec reasserts that the rights of the province must not be restricted, diminished, amended or altered by an act of the parliament of Canada and without the consent of the provincial legislatures and prays the clerk of the legislative assembly to transmit a copy of this motion to the Right Honourable the Prime Minister of Canada.
They say we should wait until we get the consent of the provinces. Having regard to the experience of the past and the natural attitude of the provinces which have certain rights under the constitution, they still say, do not do anything until you are able to secure a constitutional amendment. That argument answers itself.
Indeed the matter was considered in 1948 by a special joint committee of the House of Commons and the other place on human rights and fundamental freedoms. I have before me the proceedings of that committee, volume No. 11. In the final report of Mr. Ilsley these words appear:
The power of the dominion parliament to enact a comprehensive bill of rights is disputed. This is indicated by the letters received in reply to an invitation addressed by the committee to the attorneys general of the provinces and to deans of certain law schools to express their opinions with respect to the power of parliament to enact a comprehensive bill of rights applicable to all of Canada.
Having gone specifically into the question in great detail, a subsequent committee was set up-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the Prime Minister give the date of the first one?


John George Diefenbaker: It was 1950.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, the first one; Mr. Ilsley was not here in 1950.


John George Diefenbaker: It was 1950.


George Clyde Nowlan: Is that the Mr. Isley who was minister of justice and is now chief justice of Nova Scotia?

Human Rights


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, a very eminent jurist. That was his conclusion.


John Whitney Pickersgill: With whom the Prime Minister disagreed at the time.


John George Diefenbaker: I seem to remember an hon. gentleman saying today that he was one of those who knew how to learn from experience and passing occasions.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Does the Prime Minister admit that Mr. Ilsley was right?


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Does the Prime Minister admit that Chief Justice Ilsley was right at that time?


John George Diefenbaker: It is not for me to say
whether Mr. Ilsley was right or wrong, but that was the report of the committee and Mr. Ilsley was held in such high regard not only by the members of that government but also by us that all of us paid our tribute to a man so judicially important.
I now come to the all-Liberal committee of the Senate of 1950. It set out its suggestions and recommendations on page 305. Let me point out who was on this committee so that there will be no mistake in that regard in case anybody wishes to know. The membership consisted of: Hon. Senators Baird, David, Davies, Doone, Dupuis, Gladstone, Gouin, Grant, Kinley, Petten, Eeid, Roebuck, Ross Turgeon, Vaillancourt and Wood.
When some hon. members tell me that a bill of rights should be in language that will touch the hearts I say that these people produced a bill of rights and I am going to refer to the language they used. Here is what they concluded:
The preferable place for such fundamental law is in the constitution, which at present in Canada is the British North America Act.
Then, it says:
The enactment of a national bill of rights, however, presents difficulties_ No informed person
with any sense of responsibility would suggest that the dominion parliament forcibly invade the provincial jurisdiction. Concurrence, therefore, is an essential requisite to constitutional progress.
After pointing out all of the difficulties, it says this:
Your committee therefore recommends that, as an interim measure, the Canadian parliament adopt a declaration of human rights to be strictly limited to its own legislative jurisdiction. Such a declaration would not invade the provincial legislative authority, but it would nevertheless cover a very wide field.
Every one of the members of that distinguished committee was a member of the Liberal party. Then, the report goes on to say:
While such a declaration would not bind the Canadian parliament or future Canadian parliaments, it would serve to guide the Canadian parliament and the federal civil service. It would have

application within all the important matters reserved to the Canadian parliament in section 91 and in other sections of the British North America Act. It would apply without limitation within the Northwest Territories.
Those who oppose this bill say it should be pointed out that this bill passed by parliament, when it is a statute, is subject to repeal. It is. So was the habeas corpus act of 1670; so was the Bill of Rights of 1689; so is the Statute of Westminster of 1931. The history of mankind within the British commonwealth of nations has been, without exception, that once a statute has been passed as a landmark of liberty no subsequent parliament has ever repealed it.
Let me reiterate that those documents which have been referred to as the bulwarks and buttresses of our freedom, inherited in the British tradition, without the exception of even Magna Carta, have all been subject to repeal. Do we find any of those great documents altered, disposed of or destroyed from time to time? One thing is clear. Those who will read the constitutional history of the United Kingdom know that any statute placed on the statute books by parliament dealing with liberty never attains oblivion by repeal.
We pass on to the next argument. It is stated that we want something like the preamble to the declaration of independence. We want something Lincolnesque.


John Whitney Pickersgill: He did not write the declaration of independence.


John George Diefenbaker: We do not want a document with pedestrian words; we want something that sounds sonorous and touches the heart. I think the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) was the first to lead off in that regard. I would ask him to read the bill of rights of the province of Saskatchewan. I want to mention this because it was passed in 1947. It is an act to protect certain civil rights. I read:
This may be cited as the Saskatchewan hill of rights act.
Every person and every class of persons shall enjoy the right to freedom of conscience, opinion and belief, and freedom of religious association, teaching, practice and worship.
Every person and every class of person shall, under the law, enjoy the right to freedom of expression through all means of communication, including speech, the press, radio and the arts.
Every person and every class of persons shall enjoy the right to peaceable assembly with others and to form with others associations of any character under the law.
And so it goes. My hon. friend said we would have some trouble with this biff of rights; it did not have economic rights in it. It is interesting to see what the socialist government of Saskatchewan did in that regard. It has a provision on economic rights which reads:

Every person and every class of persons shall enjoy the right to acquire by purchase, to own in fee simple or otherwise, to lease, rent and to occupy any lands, messuages, tenements or hereditaments, corporeal or incorporeal, of every nature and description, and every estate or interest therein, whether legal or equitable, without discrimination because of the race, creed, religion, colour or ethnic or national origin of such person or class of persons.
Then it goes on to deal with other matters, the right of access to public places, the right of membership in professional and trade associations, the right of education and the prohibition against publications. I simply point out the fact that there is a bill of rights prepared by the government of that province. There is no preamble there either, and I am going to deal with the matter of a preamble a little later.
Now then, Mr. Speaker, you have heard about the language of the United States bill of rights. I am not going to read the bill of rights of the United States except to point out what it says in one amendment, and all the rest are of a similar nature. It reads:
1.	Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
2.	A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
And so on. It is simple language, understandable language, language that has stood the test of 159 years. I come for a moment to something that has been referred to at length, the brief submitted in 1959 by the association for civil liberties. This was an outstanding brief and were it not for the fact that it would not be proper to do so I should like to see this brief placed before the house. No doubt it will be available later to hon. members of the house. It is a brief submitted by some 30 outstanding groups in Canada and it was delivered to me on the 29th of April, 1959. I am going to read what it says with regard to a constitutional bill of rights.
Short of a constitutional bill of rights we welcome as an interim measure the adoption by the dominion parliament of a Canadian bill of rights act.
I have been castigated, Mr. Speaker, for not following the suggestions of this group. They point out the difficulty. They point out the constitutional impasse and while they agree that the preferable place for such a fundamental law is in the constitution they realize the difficulties inherent in waiting until a constitutional amendment has been brought into being. We have been told that we should have followed the words that 79951-0-375J
Human Rights
were suggested by this outstanding committee, and I think it is only fair to mention those who produced this brief. They are: The Anglican Church for Canada, the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Operators, Toronto, the Baptist Convention of Ontario and Quebec, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the Canadian Jewish Congress, the Catholic Immigration Bureau of Toronto, the Canadian Brotherhood of Railroad Transport and General Workers, the Canadian Labour Congress, the Canadian Polish Congress, the Chinese-Canadian Immigration Committee, the Canadian Council of Churches, the Cooperative Union of Canada, the Dominion Council of Women's Association of the United Church of Canada, the Local Council of Women of Toronto, the National Council of the Young Women's Christian Association, the Jewish Labour Committee of Canada, the Negro Citizenship Association, the National Council of Women, the Ontario Federation of Labour, the Presbyterian Church of Canada, the United Assembly Workers of America, the Buddhist Church of Toronto, the Labour Committee on Human Rights, the Women's International League of Peace and Freedom, the United Church of Canada, Board of Evangelism, the Unitarian Church, the United Packinghouse Workers of America, the United Steelworkers of America, the Workers' Educational Association, the Windsor and District Labour Council, the Interprovincial Farm Union Council, the Chinese-Canadian Association of Toronto, and the Chinese Community Centre of Ontario.
They presented this brief and I repeat that they say that "short of a constitutional bill of rights we welcome as an interim measure the adoption by the dominion parliament of a Canadian bill of rights act". They made a tremendous impression on all of us in presenting this brief. Having no other alternative to follow, we accepted their suggestion.
Now with regard to the wording there is a preamble here. I do not want to fill the record unduly. I simply point out that they have a very short preamble which reads:
Having regard to the inherent dignity and worth of the human person and inalienable rights which derive therefrom,
Considering that the respect shown for them is the foundation on which our nation rests,
Knowing from the history of man as expressed in the universal declaration of human rights proclaimed by the general assembly of the United Nations that the inherent dignity and equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family form the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.
It is recognized that every person in Canada is entitled to the following human rights and fundamental freedoms:
1. Every one has the right to life, liberty and the security of person.

Human Rights
2.	No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
3.	No one shall impose or authorize the imposition of or be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
And so it goes. Then it says this:
7. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights:
(a)	to be informed promptly, in a language he understands, of the nature and cause of the charge against him;
(b)	to defend himself in person or to retain and instruct counsel of his own choosing without delay ...
(c)	to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him;
(d)	to have the free assistance of an interpreter-
Then there is this provision:
9 (a) No person shall be compelled to give evidence before a court, tribunal, commission or other authority if he is denied the right to counsel or other constitutional safeguards;
(b) No person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.
These are the very things we have included in the bill of rights now before us. I come now to the next argument, and I want to deal with these arguments in the order in which they were presented. It was said that this bill of rights is inconsequential and of no importance because it fails to enumerate economic rights. That argument was advanced by several hon. members. Mr. Speaker, many of the economic rights are under provincial jurisdiction, but the reasons why economic rights were not included were set forth in the submission of the committee for a bill of rights. That is the committee to which I referred the other day. Two hon. members of the C.C.F. party, the hon. member for Assiniboia and the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) in a most reasoned speech, referred to the necessity of economic rights being included. What did this committee recommend?
I am going to give you some of the names of those who joined in that submission. They were, Hon. T. C. Douglas; Hon. J. W. Corman, K.C. who was the attorney general at that time; George Burt of Windsor; Andrew Brewin of Toronto; Murray Cotterill, and so on. Do you know what they said about economic rights?
We have excluded from our proposed bill of rights references to "economic" rights and freedoms which are frequently discussed in this connection. Our reason for doing so is not any belief that these economic rights and opportunities are unimportant or irrelevant to the consideration of creating genuine "freedom" in modem society. We do not at all underestimate them. We exclude them because the establishment of such rights is the function of detailed legislation and economic policy within the scope of parliament and the provincial legislatures and indeed of international action. It
[Mr. Diefenbaker.l
is an illusion to suppose that the "right of employment" or "freedom from want" can be secured by the type of constitutional declaration which is envisaged in a bill of rights.
In other words, these outstanding members of the C.C.F. party joined with all others who made representations in that regard, and clearly pointed out that economic rights are not to be included.
The argument also advanced is that we really do not need these powers; we need no such declaration; freedom is safe. Well, Mr. Speaker, I am not here for the purpose of bringing up the past.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: However, I would point out the fact that after the war was over a bill was brought before parliament on October 5, 1945, by the minister of justice the Right Hon. Mr. St. Laurent, being an act to confer certain powers upon the governor in council during the national emergency following the war. Then it sets out the kind of powers that were requested. The governor in council may do and authorize such acts and things and may make, from time to time, such orders and regulations as, for instance, production, manufacture, trade, exportation and importation; all matters coming within these classes of subjects, transportation by air, road or water; employment; appropriation, control, forfeiture and dispossession of property; entry into Canada; exclusion; deportation and revocation of nationality; and so on it went.
We took the strongest objection to that. The matter came up on a Friday and I had the honour of speaking on that at length. On the Monday there was a dominion-provincial meeting. Following that, the bill was withdrawn and another substituted in its place. This was enacted as chapter 25 of the statutes of 1945, and again it provides for conferring certain transitional powers on the governor in council during the national emergency arising out of the war. He had the power, under order in council, to do these things, besides providing for demobilization; facilitating the readjustment of industry and commerce to the requirements of the community in time of peace; maintaining, controlling and regulating supplies and services, prices, transportation, use and occupation of property, rentals, employment, salaries and wages to ensure economic stability and an orderly transition to conditions of peace; and so on it goes. Tremendous powers were given under order in council in time of peace, using as an argument for the invasion of provincial rights the doctrine of emergency.
Then they went on in 1952 and another act was passed conferring emergency powers upon

the governor in council. That was the emergency at the time of the Korean war. Again they asked for powers to control all transportation on land, air and water; control of the transportation of persons and things; control of trade, importation, production, manufacture. All of these things happened within our own time and in days of peace.


John Whitney Pickersgill: During the Korean war, was that in time of peace?


John George Diefenbaker: I am frank to admit that in so far as the latter one was concerned, it covered the period of the Korean war or at least the inception of the Korean war. These are some of the things that have taken place but which cannot take place any more excepting within the provisions of the War Measures Act, and then under clause 6, within the limitations of the War Measures Act. No longer, Mr. Speaker, will parliament be able to pass a law by a simple declaration of emergency which will permit extraordinary powers being vested in the executive or through parliament interfere with or completely disrupt, if carried into effect, section 92 concerning the rights of the provinces.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is there not an exemption in this bill for that kind of legislation?


John George Diefenbaker: I said there was an exemption, the exemption under the War Measures Act.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Oh, no, another exemption; the Prime Minister read it.


John George Diefenbaker: Sections 3, 4 and 5 shall come into force only upon the issue of a proclamation of the governor in council declaring that war, invasion or insurrection, real or apprehended, exists. A proclamation declaring that war, invasion or insurrection, real or apprehended, exists shall be laid before parliament forthwith after its issue or, if parliament is then not sitting, within the first fifteen days next thereafter that parliament is sitting. We have put an end, if parliament passes this bill, to any government, either by real emergency or by simply declaring an emergency, short of that provided in the War Measures Act, doing the things that became first the pathways of 1940 to 1945 and later the highways.
Now I should refer to another statute, the Defence Production Act, chapter 62 of the statutes of 1952. The very first thing that we did was to allow this act to lapse so that these extraordinary powers should no longer be possessed by any government.


John Whitney Pickersgill: You did not do anything about it.
Human Rights


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, we opposed the extension of the powers, and we were voted down. We did not ask for renewal.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Why did you not repeal it?


Donald Methuen Fleming: We did not need to do so; it ran out.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It ran out because we put a time limit on it.


John George Diefenbaker: This is the most intelligent interruption I have heard, Mr. Speaker: Why did we not repeal it? We did not repeal it because it ran out.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It did not run out for two
years.


John George Diefenbaker: In that matter we showed that the days of extraordinary powers under the guise of emergency had ended so far as this government was concerned. Now we are asked that it shall be part of the law of this land. It has been said-and I heard this matter argued over and over again- that while we have these rights, they have not been invaded. I am not going into particulars. That is something that can be done whenever it is suggested that I should do so. In the meantime, I am simply going to quote from Bernard K. Sandwell who was never inimical to the former government.


Paul Joseph James Martin: He was a very
intelligent man.


John George Diefenbaker: I immediately adopt the words of the hon. member for Essex East. Now we shall see what an intelligent man says about the situation:
The famous declarations of liberty in England, the Magna Carta and the bill of rights, have no binding effect upon the British parliament or upon the dominion parliaments upon which its powers have devolved in the respective dominions. Canadians learned with something of a shock a short time ago that their parliament, according to an express decision of the privy council, has power to send into exile and to strip of their property any Canadian citizen whom it elects so to treat; it can probably do so only by declaring an emergency to exist, but it can make its own emergency and the exile does not have to be connected with the emergency nor does it terminate when the emergency is over.
Those are the words of one whose memory we revere and who was known, as the hon. member for Essex East says, as a most intelligent man.
I now pass on to some of the suggestions that have been made. It has been suggested that there should be a scrutiny committee similar to that in Australia and elsewhere. It is said that the powers of the Minister of Justice are too limited. The only limitation on them is this. It was felt that if the Minister of Justice was placed in a position as provided for in the initial act, it would be

Human Rights
said that he had been placed in a dictatorial position. Now he is placed in a position which id not dictatorial but in which he is to ascertain whether any of the provisions of any bill introduced in the House of Commons is inconsistent with the purposes and the provisions of this part. Under the original form the bill provided that in order to assure that the provisions were fully carried out-[DOT] and there was criticism in this regard-we felt that placing him in that position would set him above parliament in an authoritarian position. When it is suggested that there should be a scrutiny committee, may I say that that suggestion which I have made on other occasions is one that deserves the fullest consideration and no doubt it will be among those things which will be considered and deliberated upon in the days to come.
The second suggestion is that at one time I said the bill should be referred to the supreme court. I did so when it was a bill that covered the entire field of human freedoms, in order to assure that only things that came within the federal jurisdiction should be included in the bill of rights. There is no longer any necessity for a submission to the supreme court because the bill, as we now bring it before parliament, is entirely and unequivocably within the federal jurisdiction.


Paul Joseph James Martin: What about clause 2?


John George Diefenbaker: Much has been said by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) with regard to the War Measures Act and his views in this regard are deserving of full consideration. However, the War Measures Act does not enter into the equation at this time. It has been in effect for 56 years. It was designed to provide for security in time of war when things were done, as they will always be done, in the interests of the security of the state but which on occasion bring harm to innocent persons. It has been on the statute books for 56 years.
I think the whole act deserves to be considered, as the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) said. I think if we would get together the membership in the house and deal with the War Measures Act and ascertain the degree to which the rights of the individual may be maintained to the highest extent without detriment to the security of the nation as a whole, changes and amendments might be made to that act. If hon. members of the house so desire, I would be willing that at the next session a committee be set up to consider this whole field, for the War Measures Act, like all measures passed for the purpose of ensuring the salvation and survival of the state, has

been found in the light of experience not only here but in other countries to contain provisions that ought to be ameliorated or subdued in the interests of the individual while at the same time maintaining the security of the state.
I think I have covered in general the various arguments that have been advanced. I now summarize this bill of rights as I see it. It is a measure for the preservation of the rights of the individual against the state. It will declare the rights of freedom. The Minister of Justice will examine each piece of legislation that is presented in order to ascertain whether it transgresses in any way the general declaration. It will provide judges with a chart for interpretation. It will deny any tyrannical clauses or provisions in statutes which deny fundamental rights. It will declare the existence of those constitutional rights. It will deny that any individual will be refused his right to be heard and to have counsel.
Some may say: when was a man ever denied the right to be heard in days of peace? Oatway, in western Canada, started an action against the wheat board in 1946, I think it was. He got to the court of appeal of Manitoba. He wanted to appeal to the supreme court. An order in council was passed which provided that he had no appeal; indeed that he never had any right to start an action in the first place.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


John George Diefenbaker: That denial of the right of the individual under law will not again occur.
A suggestion was made regarding a committee. I am going to move that this bill be submitted to a committee of this house where the fullest consideration can be given to its terms.
It has been said that there should be a preamble. While the day of preambles is pretty well over, I would welcome those with that power of language, with the imagery and with the capacity to place in a preamble the kind of challenging words that have been asked for. The bill of rights we place before the house contains the working sections. I have no objections to a declarative preamble. The committee on human rights and fundamental freedoms dealt with this matter at length, and came to the conclusion in 1948, as I recollect it, that what was needed was simple language setting forth the rights of the individual. We have taken that course. But if hon. gentlemen in any part of the house can produce a declaration or a preamble which will have the results and the effects that have been asked

lor, such a preamble covering a declaration of our fundamental freedoms would certainly not be turned down.
I realize that, as has been said, laws in themselves will not do anything. No law in the end is more important than the spirit of a people, their traditions and their appreciations of spiritual values. All societies need rules and symbols to express their highest hopes and goals. I view this bill of rights as a statement of a Canadian sense of history and of the objectives and standards that we accept in the fashioning of the society in which we believe. I know it has been said before by the cynics, who believe themselves realists, that declarations mean nothing. I have said before, and I repeat: cynics have said for a thousand years that idealistic charters of freedom are meaningless. My answer to those who hold that view is that the same arguments could have been used against the sermon on the mount and the other great declarations of scripture when compared with the actual practices of those of us who are Christians. On the other hand, to what depths mankind would have sunk were it not for those supreme declarations of spiritual values which, touching the heart, cause man to know that there are things greater than materialism.
That is why this bill of rights is before hon. members now. It is something I have believed in. I do not mind the taunts. I am a realist, but I do hold this to be true- that in the years ahead we shall look back upon this as a measure that showed we had faith in our institutions; that we intended to assure the individual that the rights that he has inherited will not be diminished; and that we did not intend our faith to die in the airless graves of fear and doubt. There is the answer, imperfect as it is, to communism, which, while it makes declarations, denies those sacred things of the personality.
Has this had any effect as yet? On July 4 there was an editorial in the Manchester Guardian, a newspaper which is often quoted in this house. It reads:
The decision to go ahead with a bill of rights now is of general importance not only to Canada but to all the commonwealth. Few countries have matured out of British rule more surely than Canada. Even so, the lack of restraint on parliaments and on governments, which is basic to the British constitution, has been abused. Many who, like Mr. Diefenbaker, are devoted to the parliamentary system of government, have felt keenly the need for a bill of rights which would allow the courts to review arbitrary legislation and action.
Then it goes on to refer to the record of the federal government with regard to certain things to which I do not intend to refer, and it says:
Human Rights
The colonial office should give serious attention to Canadian experience both in constitution-making and in obtaining the respect for human rights which the early introduction of a bill of rights would give.
Those are my reasons why this bill of rights represented so much to me through the years along with the achievement of Ca-nadianism. Those were my hopes. Those were my aspirations as an ordinary Canadian now having the opportunity, in a country that gives opportunity, to bring before parliament that which I believe to mean much to Canada.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) was good enough to say that at the conclusion of his speech he would answer any questions.


Thomas Miller Bell: From the sublime to the ridiculous.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have the right hon. gentleman's words right here. He said: "if the hon. gentleman will let me proceed I will answer any questions at the end." I have two questions I should like to put to the Prime Minister. They are questions which, despite what the right hon. gentleman might say, are of a completely non-partisan nature and are seeking information. The first is this. Does the Prime Minister contend that clause 3 of the bill as now drafted limits the power of parliament to enact legislation to declare an emergency?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, it limits the power of parliament excepting in so far as the application of the War Measures Act is concerned.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not think that is a correct answer-


Jay Waldo Monteith: The hon. member has made his speech.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would remind the hon. gentleman who interrupts-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is prevented by the rules from continuing his remarks. If he has a question and the Prime Minister is prepared to answer questions the hon. member might put his question.


John Whitney Pickersgill: My second question is this, Mr. Speaker. As I understood it the Prime Minister said that in this country unlike the United Kingdom-if I am not reproducing the statement correctly the Prime Minister can correct me-there had been orders in council which had suspended habeas corpus without statutory authority.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Is this the preamble?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would like the Prime
Minister to tell me when that ever happened.

Division


Lester Bowles Pearson: It never did.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I did not say that so apparently the hon. gentleman completely misunderstood and misapprehended what I said.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The record will show it,
if it is not changed.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: Take that back.


George Harris Hees: Shame.


William Heward Grafftey: Cheap.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I was merely quoting the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Morris)
who made a similar statement earlier about the hon. member for Laurier.


Mr. Barrington:: Go back to the crystal ball.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I spoke
hastily. I do not think I should have said what I said and I withdraw it.



MOTION FOR SPECIAL COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime
Minister):	Mr. Speaker, with leave of the
house I move:
That a special committee be appointed to consider Bill C-79, an act for the recognition and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms, with power to send for persons, papers and records and to report from time to time;
That such committee have power to print such papers and evidence from day to day as may be deemed advisable or necessary;
That the committee shall consist of 15 members to be designated by the house;

That the committee be empowered to sit during the sittings of the house;
That standing order 66 be suspended in relation thereto.
Motion agreed to.

John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I move that Bill No. C-79 be referred to the committee just authorized.
Motion agreed to and bill referred to the special committee on the act for the recognition and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms.



MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF PERSONNEL

[Stage Direction]
Mr. John Pallet! (Peel) moved:
That the special committee on the act for the recognition and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms be composed of Messrs. Argue, Batten, Deschatelets, Dorion, Jorgenson, Jung, Korchinski, Martin (Essex East), Martini, Nasserden, Nielsen, Rapp, Roberge, Spencer and Stefanson.
Motion agreed to.

Lionel Chevrier: May we be told what the business is for tomorrow and for next week as well?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, there will be a slight change in the order of business as
Business of the House
announced earlier this week, I hope the Leader of the Opposition will not mind if I indicate that at his special request we are dropping external affairs this week and taking up that department next week. This has been done by consultation and arrangement. We will go on with the estimates of the C.B.C. and the board of broadcast governors tomorrow as the first item, followed by the estimates of the department of northern affairs. On Monday the program will consist of legislative items, the department of forestry act and the superannuation act if it is reported back to the house tomorrow; the discussion of the Canada-U.S.S.R. trade agreement, which is first on the order paper now. If these items are cleared on Monday, we will proceed with a discussion of the estimates of the Department of Labour, followed by public works, that is for Monday and Tuesday, if there is time available for these departments. For Wednesday, and this is by arrangement suitable to both sides of the house, we will take the estimates of the Department of Transport; for Thursday, this again is by arrangement, we will start off with the estimates of external affairs.
This order of business is subject to adjustment if hon. members on the other side of the house have suggestions to make to me tomorrow or on Monday.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to special order.
79951-0-376
[Stage Direction]
Questions

[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. Broome: 1.	What was the total value of Canadian merchandise exports and merchandise imports for each of the last five years, and for 1960 to latest available date, and show deficit or surplus as a percentage of total merchandise trade?
2.	What are the same figures for (a) the United
States only; (b) United Kingdom only:	(c) all
commonwealth countries; (d) all other countries except United States and commonwealth countries?
Answer by: Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):
			Deficit (-) or surplus (+)
	Exports		as percentage
	(domestic		of exports +
Year	and foreign)	Imports	imports
1. Total value of merchandise trade			
1955	
S 4,327,776,457	$ 4,567,754,226	- 2.71956	
4,833,776,793	5,546,951,334	- 6.91957	
4,884,140,762	5,473,345,640	- 5.71958	
4,894,342,833	5,050,492,404	- 1.61959	
5,140,109,818	5,508,920,837	- 3.5Jan. to Apr. 1960	
1,058,893,575	1,803,300,000*	- 4.22. (a) Trade with United States	1955	
2,600,538,945	3,331,143,117	-12.31956	
2,863,570,698	4,031,393,566	-16.91957	
2,920,834,142	3,887,390,687	-14.21958	
2,895,794,744	3,460,147,423	- 8.91959	
3,181,903,202	3,709,064,769	- 7.7Jan. to Apr. 1960	
999,610,952	1,267,200,000*	-11.8(6) Trade with United Kingdom	1955	
772,313,654	393,117,413	+32.51956	
816,834,045	476,370,801	+36.41957	
726,048,752	507,318,958	+17.71958	
776,668,640	518,505,337	+19.91959	
794,270,566	588,573,055	+14.9Jan to Apr. 1960	
266,012,214	200,100,000*	+ 14.3(c) All commonwealth countries (including United Kingdom)	1955	
1,009,688,374	602,057,815	+25.31956	
1,060,793,260	696,808,274	+20.71957	
961,215,584	745,250,998	+12.71958	
1,000,800,112	727,207,693	+18.71959	
1,070,018,873	827,813,231	+ 12.8Jan. to Apr. 1960	
360,316,720	268,900,000*	+14.5(d) All other countries except United States and commonwealth countries	1955	
717,549,138	634,553,294	- 3.91956	
909,412,835	818,749,494	- 4.81957	
1,002,091,036	840,703,955	- 1.21958	
937,747,977	863,137,288	- 5.91959	
888,187,743	972,042,837	- 5.5Jan. to Apr. 1960	
298,965,901	267,200,000*	- 4.4Notes: 1. Import statistics for January-April 1960	are preliminary. (*)	2. The above statistics are adjusted to conform with the revised coverage of Canadian trade statistics	from January 1960.	
Friday, July 8, 1960