March 24, 1952

IND

John Lambert Gibson

Independent

Mr. Gibson:

Rapt.

Topic:   HUMAN RIGHTS
Subtopic:   DECLARATION TO ENSURE FUNDAMENTAL
Sub-subtopic:   REFERENCE TO SUPREME COURT AS TO JURISDICTION
Permalink
CCF

Herbert Wilfred Herridge

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. Herridge:

I want also to associate myself with the remarks that have been made by previous speakers concerning what is happening in South Africa today in an attempt to segregate the black race and to do them what we consider to be a great injustice. That is all I am going to say so far as the abstract principles of this resolution are concerned, and I shall now proceed from the abstract to the concrete by bringing to the attention of this house a particular case which developed in my constituency in recent weeks. I do this because I have been asked by a number of responsible citizens to bring the matter to the attention of the house and because it illustrates the need for a bill of human rights or a declaration of human rights and for some change in the procedures that are used at the present time to make certain that human beings are not damaged in their reputations as a result of the necessity for security regulations.

On November 28, 1951, the hon. member for York West (Mr. Adamson) brought to the attention of the house the discharge of an employee of the A. V. Roe Company in Malton

Human Rights

'*n orders of the security officials of the firm. In dealing with this case he said in part:

* tn all seriousness I say to this house it is an act of vicious dictatorship, perhaps thoughtless, but nevertheless an act of dictatorship. If we are to carry on our fight against communism, we must : continue our fight for freedom, justice, security,

' and for the dignity of the individual. If we allow these things to be destroyed through the methods I have mentioned, we are in very truth giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

I agree completely with the hon. member's remarks on that occasion. He was presenting to the house the case of an employee of a large company who was discharged for security reasons without the opportunity to find out why, to defend himself and so on.

; Further on in the same debate the hon. member had this to say:

' There are today three basic freedoms: freedom of life; freedom of the person, generally known as habeas corpus; and the freedom to work. To take away any of them in this modern age results in a failure of essential justice. In fact, it is much worse; it is the act of a dictatorship.

Topic:   HUMAN RIGHTS
Subtopic:   DECLARATION TO ENSURE FUNDAMENTAL
Sub-subtopic:   REFERENCE TO SUPREME COURT AS TO JURISDICTION
Permalink
LIB

Irvin William Studer

Liberal

Mr. Sluder:

Are you speaking for the Sons of Freedom?

Topic:   HUMAN RIGHTS
Subtopic:   DECLARATION TO ENSURE FUNDAMENTAL
Sub-subtopic:   REFERENCE TO SUPREME COURT AS TO JURISDICTION
Permalink
CCF

Herbert Wilfred Herridge

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. Herridge:

No, not particularly. They are looking for a new leader so I suggest the hon. member make application. The remarks of the hon. member for York West on that occasion illustrate the strength of our democracy. I am one of those who differ, along with the remainder of the members of this group, with the economic opinions advanced by the hon. member for York West, but we are very happy to be associated with him and support him in his conception of democratic procedures and human rights. A few days later, on December 3, 1951, the Prime Minister (Mr. 1 St. Laurent) made a statement on security as ' the result of the remarks of the hon. member for York West, and I quote from page 1504 of Hansard as follows:

The reliability of the overwhelming majority of * industrial employees in Canada is beyond doubt. In the case of the few who cannot be said with certainty to be reliable, the government has always to consider two things: the need to avoid doing any injury to an individual and the protection of material vital to the security of this country.

We agree entirely with that. In common with other members of the house, I was pleased when the Prime Minister spoke on this . question and showed great concern over the matter. It was obvious to me that it was r unpleasant to him to know that in order to provide security for our country certain unusual regulations had to be given effect. The Prime Minister then went on to say:

There are usually positions in a plant that do not involve security, and transfers to them can be made. It may happen that in some plants, which are engaged wholly on defence work such transfers are impossible, for one reason or another. In those cases the company is faced with the choice

fMr. Herridge.]

of releasing the individual or giving up its Contract. These are the most difficult cases to handle. It may be that in all instances companies have not done their utmost to find means of making transfers. The importance of always doing so is being brought to their attention. Employers should always try to avoid dismissals if at all possible. They have a duty not to increase the difficulties or disabilities of persons whose only misfortune is that their reliability is open to question. It is very important that such persons should not be branded as disloyal.

We in this group think that that is a most satisfactory statement and on the whole a very fair approach to this situation. Then on page 1506 the Prime Minister in this same statement is reported as follows:

This means, of course, that the responsibility of the government is the greater to see that every case is carefully assessed and that no decisions as to the reliability of an individual are lightly taken.

And again:

The government is, however, fully aware of the importance of ensuring in so far as possible that no injury is done to any individual through the decisions that must be taken. Security procedures are constantly under review and if they can be improved, the government will always be ready to make the improvements and will always welcome and seriously consider constructive suggestions to that end.

I want to say in all fairness that I think the government has set a good example to the employers of this country in this most unpleasant task and necessary business. We all know that there has been a certain amount of screening of employees in connection with certain work under the jurisdiction of the government of Canada. I understand that this has been done according to the terms set out in the statement of the Prime Minister and every consideration has been given to the rights of the individual and to his reputation and an effort made to avoid unfair publicity. I understand that in a few cases the government has found it necessary, because of doubts that had arisen, to transfer some individuals to work where there was no question of security involved.

The case I am bringing to the attention of the house is being brought up at the request, as I said previously, of a number of responsible citizens in my riding, of a trade union in my constituency and of other organizations. I am going to read briefly from a memorandum I have made up from a number of letters I have received so that I can present the facts as they have been presented to me. I might say that I do not know this man and I have never met him. He has written to me and I have to go entirely on the information that has been forwarded to me.

On Friday, January 11, at about 3 p.m., a resident of Trail, British Columbia, and employee of the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company, Limited, was summoned

from his job in Warfield and called over to the office of the personnel division. Upon entering the office, he was met by the manager of the division and informed that bad news was in store for him. He was then told that the company had information in its possession which indicated that he had come to Trail with a long term view of plotting some injury to the company and not primarily for the purpose of obtaining employment. The supervisor then gave the employee two alternatives: either he could voluntarily quit his job and nothing more would be said about it, or he would be discharged within an hour. The employee was shocked as never before in his life. He refused to quit his job and protested his innocence. He then asked the supervisor the source of the information he was acting on and the exact nature of the charge. He was met with an adamant and numbing refusal. The employee then asked for a full hearing so that he could prove his innocence. And again the supervisor shook his head and told him that the decision was final and there was nothing that he could do to alter the situation. He was then discharged and has since been marked down as an undesirable employee even though the company supervisors admit that his work record has been good.

What is this employee's background? I am told he is a young married man, twenty-six years of age. He was raised and educated at Foam Lake, Saskatchewan. At the age of eighteen, as soon as possible, he joined the Canadian active army and served for nearly three years in Canada and overseas with the armoured corps, receiving an honourable discharge in August, 1946. On leaving the army he found employment in the logging industry, and worked in various camps until April, 1949, when he suffered a broken leg as a result of a logging accident. He was a patient in St. Paul's hospital in Vancouver, where he met his wife who is now a nurse at the C. S. Williams clinic in Trail. After recovery from his accident he sold insurance for a time for the British Pacific Insurance Company, until October, 1950, when he went to work for the Canadian Pacific Railway at Nelson.

In July of last year he came to Trail, and soon afterwards started working for the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company in the coke ammonia plant at Warfield. His work record was good and on one occasion he was commended by his immediate boss for the quality of his work. Now, that is the information given to me.

As I said before, I do not know this man. I have never met him. I simply have to go on the correspondence forwarded to me from

Human Rights

the district which I represent. The man wrote! to me personally, and I am not going to read the letter. I read it very carefully. He wrote to me as his member, asking if I could do something for him owing to this unfortunate incident. He tells me in his letter that he( writes with a heavy heart as a result of this incident. He is a young married man just starting to build a home. He has a small family, and is expecting an addition to the family shortly. He tells me he comes from the prairie, and that he and his family have always been considered God-fearing people. He writes also to say that he cannot understand why he has not had an opportunity of defending himself or explaining his position.

In addition to that I might say that the trade union, which is the bargaining agent for the plant in Trail, has also written to me at length along similar lines. I have received correspondence from other responsible persons who are greatly concerned about the position of this young man. As the member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) has said, we all realize the need for security. We support the government in every effort it makes to ensure that our security is protected. But in this instance, Mr. Speaker, nothing was done to give effect to the government's proposal or suggestions. A very small section of this plant is subject to security regulations. Nothing was done about transferring this man, if there was an element of doubt, to some other department not associated with security in any way.

I mention this because we have to look at the problem from the point of view of the individual. This case directly concerns only one human being, his wife and family, but indirectly it affects us all. It is easy enough to feel impersonal about it. But think of the young man, and his plight. He served this country overseas, joining the army when he was eighteen years of age. He comes from what is generally termed a God-fearing family, yet is thrown out of employment and his reputation suffers to that extent. There is no question about the company being within its legal rights in discharging this man. As I understand it he had not been employed for the full six months, and up until that period the company has the option of discharging a man according to the terms of the union contract. The company in this case took advantage of that provision in the union contract.

It is an unfortunate incident, because the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company has had very good relations with its employees. It is one of the largest employers of labour in British Columbia. Throughout the years its employee relationships have

Human Rights

been good; in fact there has not been a strike in that plant since 1917. In this particular case the union grievance committee appealed to the management, and did what they could to present the young man's case, but to no avail. Here is a young veteran discharged, without any opportunity to answer questions or defend himself. Surely in such a large plant as this there was opportunity for him to be given employment in another part of the plant or in the various mines and other projects that the company is operating throughout the district. Many good people in the district are quite disturbed over this young man's plight. You can imagine the reaction to the position of a young man in those circumstances in a relatively small community. Those who know this young man personally are convinced he has suffered a great injustice.

As I said before, there is no question about it, this action is not in accord with the government's example. We all know that the screening of people for security measures is necessary in certain projects. We know that, as the Prime Minister has said, an element of doubt can arise without reflecting upon a person's reputation. Some information comes to hand showing that there is an element of doubt and the employer, on the basis of that information, is justified in transferring the man to another department. There may be a question of association, quite innocent from his point of view, but it may lead to an element of doubt. In some cases, as the Prime Minister has said, it is purely a matter of temperamental instability. The person is not considered the right type temperamentally to be doing work in which security is concerned. The point is that there is no opportunity, under any of these circumstances, for a man to know the charge or suspicions against him; there is no chance for him to hear the evidence and answer questions to prove his innocence.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I heartily agree with the remarks made by the member for Rosetown-Biggar in connection with these unfortunate cases. We believe every precaution should be taken to protect the citizen, his fundamental rights and human freedoms. In this connection I should like to say that, provided the law is obeyed and provided security is not jeopardized, the fact that an employee holds certain political views of which his employer disapproves should not, in a democratic country, put him in jeopardy of losing his livelihood. Full and complete discussion of all difficult problems is the surest method of obtaining a live, healthy and educated democracy.

fMr. Herridge.]

Mr. Justice Black has stated this proposition forcibly in the case of United Public Workers of America (CIO) v. Mitchell et al. (67 Supreme Court, 556), where he said:

In a country whose people elect their leaders and decide great public issues, the voice of none should be suppressed-at least such is the assumption of the first amendment. That amendment, unless I misunderstand its meaning, includes a command that the government must, in order to promote its own interest, leave the people at liberty to speak their own truths about government, advocate their own favoured governmental causes and work for their own political candidates and parties.

That is the end of the quotation from Mr. Justice Black's decision. An employer-employee relationship has in it such a power of dominance on the part of the employer that it is capable of thwarting the rights and desires of employees to engage in the basic democratic struggle. This is particularly so under our current economic system, where concentration of power in great monopolies, unless checked, places in the hands of the few men who operate them the opportunity of controlling the livelihood, and thus the freedom of speech, of a large part of our industrial papulation.

If we should decide that the state has no power to say to an employer that he cannot interfere with the political life or the political beliefs of the people who work for him, we may in effect be preventing a large section of our population from engaging in political action. There are quite a number of employers who have an unfavourable opinion of the political philosophy advocated by this group. In recent years, through the medium of new forms of communication and greater mass education, a larger percentage of our population has become increasingly interested and active in political life. It has come to be understood that a healthy democracy is one in which the democratic freedoms are increasingly provided and exercised.

In support of any argument I should like to quote from another famous and highly respected justice of the supreme court of the United States, Mr. Justice Holmes. In his dissent in the case of Abrams et al. v. United States (250 U.S. 616), he said:

But when men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas-that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out. That, at any rate, is the theory of our constitution.

We in Canada, Mr. Speaker,, are fortunate that there has not been 'the same hysteria

as in the United States with respect to security, the cold war and other matters associated therewith. I think we are exceedingly fortunate in that connection. The Canadian people are less given to hysteria and are, I believe, more stable under the conditions in which we are living today.

Yesterday I happened to be reading the Sunday issue of the New York Times. In the magazine section of the New York Times of March 23 I read an article which impressed me greatly with the growing concern of a large number of thinking people in the United States over the multitude of investigations and the effect they are having upon the very basis of democracy in that country. Do not forget that once you have been investigated and it becomes publicly known that you have been investigated, whether you are guilty or not, your reputation, without question, has been tarnished. I was greatly interested to read this article. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I would recommend it to the members of this house. As I say, it may be found in the magazine section of the New York Times of March 23. The article is headed "An Inquiry into Congressional Inquiries". The subheading reads: "Their increasingly punitive nature is decried as a corruption of a fair and valid function." The article is written by William S. White and there is this note about him:

William S. White of the Times Washington staff covered many of the congressional investigations since the end of the war. Here he departs from his straight reporting and expresses a personal opinion of what he considers a dangerous trend in the capital.

This is what he has to say, and I thought it was well stated:

The age of accusation and the era of profound ill-feeling now grimly enwrap the capital of the greatest power in the world, the home of a lost tolerance and the centre of a compassion that is now receding in memory. The square, massive, sad memorial to Abraham Lincoln, the rounded, softer and more pleasing pile that commemorates Thomas Jefferson-physically these remain; white and cold and lifeless.

Lincoln's capacity for forgiveness; Lincoln's understanding acceptance of man's weaknesses: Mr. Jefferson's ability even to live with dangerous thoughts-gone, it seems, are all these, and, it seems, gone past early recapture.

Fortunately, Mr. Speaker, that statement would not be true in Canada. We are pleased to support this resolution brought before the house by the hon. member for Lake Centre because we want to do all we can to make certain that no one would be able to write an article of that type about parliament hill in Canada.

Human Rights

Just before concluding I want to quote from Mr. Justice Brandeis, who so eloquently said in the case of Whitney v. California (274 US 357):

Although the rights of free speech and assembly are fundamental, they are not in their nature absolute. Their exercise is subject to restriction if the particular restriction proposed is required in order to protect the state from destruction or some serious injury . . . (But) to justify suppression of free speech there must be reasonable ground to fear that serious evil will result if free speech is practised.

If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the process of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence. Only an emergency can justify repression. Such must be the rule if authority is to be reconciled with freedom.

The point I want to make in that connection, Mr. Speaker, is this. The remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence. Only an emergency can justify repression. Such must be the rule if authority is to be reconciled with freedom.

We have tried, Mr. Speaker, to expose through discussion the falsehoods and fallacies that are preached by some people in this country. The threat to freedom is far greater where one's earning capacity is curtailed for upholding his political beliefs, and the invasion of private rights is far less if an employer is restricted in acting toward his employee in accordance with a bill of rights, such as that suggested by the hon. member for Lake Centre. Man may not be able to live by bread alone, but he cannot live or exercise his freedom without it.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I want to say this. When making his statement the Prime Minister asked for constructive suggestions. I suggest, as did the hon. member for Rose-town-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), that surely in this time of peace there can be some provision for a review board to review the case of a man whose loyalty, capacity or fitness is questioned. A county court judge, or two or three other responsible persons, could function as a review board that would have the opportunity to go over the evidence presented to it, to make as certain as possible that we are not doing an injustice to a Canadian citizen because of the necessity to be careful of our security.

My second suggestion is this, because I have noticed two or three cases similar to the one that I have brought to the attention of the house. As a matter of fact, I have here a copy of the Anglican Outlook. Like the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, I am an Anglican and I read among others the Anglican publications. In this magazine, the issue of March, 1952, there is described in a letter a similar occurrence in Montreal where a young engineer, employed by a company, was dismissed without knowing the

Human Rights

reason why. He professes his innocence and has no opportunity to prove it. I therefore urge the government to make every possible effort to see that these industrialists, who are undertaking contracts that may require a certain amount of security and protection, follow the example of the government and that they understand these procedures. In some cases you get clever men in industry who are not well versed in constitutional matters and who are not widely read; I have known men of that type who would call a man a communist if he expressed his belief in the principles of liberalism, because they knew nothing about it. The man may have used a few words that he had seen used in the press, as being used by a communist or fellow traveller or someone of that sort. Therefore, in their opinion, the man was a communist. I suggest that the government make every effort to see that these firms thoroughly understand the rules that the government has adopted and that they follow the government's example which, as I say, has been excellent so far as security arrangements are concerned, and the screening of government employees.

Finally, I ask the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) to investigate this case and to see if something cannot be done to have this young man re-employed. As I said before, I know only the facts as presented to me in writing and the information I have received from various organizations and constituents. I am, however, greatly concerned that we do not make a mistake in these matters when, as in this case, a young veteran, who has served this country, with a young family is in the position where his reputation is at stake, his livelihood and his future in jeopardy.

My final point is this. More than ever do we realize that there is a need for a bill of rights and fundamental freedoms or a declaration of them if we are going to make certain that Canada maintains its democratic practices and all Canadian citizens receive justice in the days to come.

Topic:   HUMAN RIGHTS
Subtopic:   DECLARATION TO ENSURE FUNDAMENTAL
Sub-subtopic:   REFERENCE TO SUPREME COURT AS TO JURISDICTION
Permalink
LIB

Pierre Gauthier

Liberal

Mr. Pierre Gauthier (Portneuf):

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to have to delay the house for a little while. It was not my intention to take part in this debate until another day, but as I see that there is no one else on his feet, I feel that I must take this opportunity to say a few words on the matter.

I am going to tell the house first that I shall try to be as objective as possible. I will try not to let my temper get the best of me. Sometimes when I let my temper go,

I put a little bit too much heat into the debate. At this time I shall try to be as calm as possible.

When I came into the house tonight I listened for a while to the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell). He was referring to what I believe was the Magna Carta of the government of Saskatchewan. Was not that so?

Topic:   HUMAN RIGHTS
Subtopic:   DECLARATION TO ENSURE FUNDAMENTAL
Sub-subtopic:   REFERENCE TO SUPREME COURT AS TO JURISDICTION
Permalink
?

An hon. Member:

That is right.

Topic:   HUMAN RIGHTS
Subtopic:   DECLARATION TO ENSURE FUNDAMENTAL
Sub-subtopic:   REFERENCE TO SUPREME COURT AS TO JURISDICTION
Permalink
LIB

Pierre Gauthier

Liberal

Mr. Gauthier (Portneuf):

I should like to have asked him a question about it, especially with regard to a school item. In my province the people are taxed for the education subsidies. We have a special fund for education. Everyone, no matter to what creed he belongs, pays his taxes to the government and the subsidies are equally divided and distributed to all the denominations, to all kinds of schools including Catholic, Protestant and Jewish. I should like to have asked the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar or any Saskatchewan member if the same thing applies in their province; because I think there is a special right of the individual to receive from the government equal division of the taxes received by that government, especially for his schools. I should like to know whether, in Saskatchewan, they have a system of double taxation or whether they are operating in the same way as we operate in Quebec. Can any hon. member from Saskatchewan answer that question? Somebody tells me that they have double taxation; that the Catholics are obliged to pay taxes like all the others, but they are obliged to maintain their own schools as well. That is double taxation. We have not that in Quebec. We respect the right of the individual to be educated in his language and in his faith as well, without being obliged to pay double taxation. That is human rights. That brings me to say that if we wish to have a bill of rights in Canada we have first to respect the constitution.

I hold in my hand a declaration of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) at the UNO. It is contained in a periodical dated January, 1949. The Secretary of State for External Affairs said:

I wish to make it clear here that in regard to any rights which are defined in this document, the federal government of Canada does not intend to invade other rights which are also important to the people of Canada. By this I mean the rights of a province under our federal constitution.

Therefore, if we are to have a bill of rights in Canada, we must respect the constitution, and every province has to take part in the enactment of this bill of rights.

Topic:   HUMAN RIGHTS
Subtopic:   DECLARATION TO ENSURE FUNDAMENTAL
Sub-subtopic:   REFERENCE TO SUPREME COURT AS TO JURISDICTION
Permalink
CCF

Robert Ross (Roy) Knight

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. Knight:

I can answer my hon. friend's question as far as my city is concerned.

Topic:   HUMAN RIGHTS
Subtopic:   DECLARATION TO ENSURE FUNDAMENTAL
Sub-subtopic:   REFERENCE TO SUPREME COURT AS TO JURISDICTION
Permalink
LIB

Pierre Gauthier

Liberal

Mr. Gauthier (Portneuf):

I mean Saskatchewan.

Topic:   HUMAN RIGHTS
Subtopic:   DECLARATION TO ENSURE FUNDAMENTAL
Sub-subtopic:   REFERENCE TO SUPREME COURT AS TO JURISDICTION
Permalink
CCF

Robert Ross (Roy) Knight

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. Knight:

I live in Saskatchewan. As far as my city of Saskatoon is concerned, any ratepayer oan designate the institution to which he wishes his taxes to go, either to the public school or to the separate school, and his wishes in that regard are carried out. So far as I know we have no double taxation. He pays his taxes either to the separate school or to the public school. That is as I understand it. There are gentlemen behind the hon. member who are from Saskatchewan and can set him right.

Topic:   HUMAN RIGHTS
Subtopic:   DECLARATION TO ENSURE FUNDAMENTAL
Sub-subtopic:   REFERENCE TO SUPREME COURT AS TO JURISDICTION
Permalink
LIB

Pierre Gauthier

Liberal

Mr. Gauthier (Portneuf):

They know it. I was asking the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, but he is not in his seat. I then asked any hon. member from Saskatchewan if he could tell me. The hon. member says that there is not double taxation in his city, but what about the province? That is what I should like to know, just as a matter of information. I want to learn what is going on in my country.

Topic:   HUMAN RIGHTS
Subtopic:   DECLARATION TO ENSURE FUNDAMENTAL
Sub-subtopic:   REFERENCE TO SUPREME COURT AS TO JURISDICTION
Permalink
CCF

Robert Ross (Roy) Knight

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. Knight:

Ask the people behind you.

Topic:   HUMAN RIGHTS
Subtopic:   DECLARATION TO ENSURE FUNDAMENTAL
Sub-subtopic:   REFERENCE TO SUPREME COURT AS TO JURISDICTION
Permalink
LIB

Pierre Gauthier

Liberal

Mr. Gauthier (Portneuf):

I do not need them to defend my case.

Topic:   HUMAN RIGHTS
Subtopic:   DECLARATION TO ENSURE FUNDAMENTAL
Sub-subtopic:   REFERENCE TO SUPREME COURT AS TO JURISDICTION
Permalink
CCF

Robert Ross (Roy) Knight

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. Knight:

The information is easily obtainable. I am not prepared at this moment to give facts and figures.

Topic:   HUMAN RIGHTS
Subtopic:   DECLARATION TO ENSURE FUNDAMENTAL
Sub-subtopic:   REFERENCE TO SUPREME COURT AS TO JURISDICTION
Permalink
LIB

Pierre Gauthier

Liberal

Mr. Gauthier (Portneuf):

You can give them to me later on. I am always open to conviction.

Topic:   HUMAN RIGHTS
Subtopic:   DECLARATION TO ENSURE FUNDAMENTAL
Sub-subtopic:   REFERENCE TO SUPREME COURT AS TO JURISDICTION
Permalink
LIB

Irvin William Studer

Liberal

Mr. Sluder:

The hon. member for Saskatoon is supporting the resolution; he ought to know. It is a fundamental freedom.

Topic:   HUMAN RIGHTS
Subtopic:   DECLARATION TO ENSURE FUNDAMENTAL
Sub-subtopic:   REFERENCE TO SUPREME COURT AS TO JURISDICTION
Permalink
LIB

Pierre Gauthier

Liberal

Mr. Gauthier (Portneuf):

If we must have a bill of rights we should be sure of the phraseology. In some countries of the world they have bills of rights, and in some countries they do not observe what is written in black and white in their constitutions.

Let us go to the United States for a while. Is the problem of coloured people settled in the United States in every part of that country? No. Yet, they have a bill of rights there. They are not supposed to have any discrimination of race, religion, creed, or colour. Yet, they have discrimination. Has my hon. friend not heard about two bills that were presented to the congress of the United States in 1949, the Thomas bill and the Barden bill? The Thomas bill gave the right to each state to decide whether the federal subsidy should be refused to private institutions. But there was another bill, which was much more radical. It was moved by Representative Barden. By this bill he bluntly prohibited the application of the federal subsidy to institutions other than 55704-48

Human Rights

the public schools. Well, if a nation has a bill of rights and says that there is no discrimination whatever within the boundaries of that country in so far as race and colour are concerned, and still has that discrimination that I have just mentioned, then that bill of rights does not mean what it says.

We have to be very careful if we have a bill of rights in Canada. We must be careful to see that it applies to all the provinces, including Quebec as well as the others. The United States is the prototype of the democratic countries of the world at the present time. The United States is taxing its citizens heavily to protect and defend democracy in the world, and yet at the same time there are discriminations in so far as religion and colour are concerned. Are they sincere? I hope they were sincere when they enacted their bill of rights, but they are not applying it according to the language that is written in that bill of rights. I would not like that to happen in Canada.

Other countries of the world have bills of rights. Spain has been mentioned here in the house, Franco-Spain as we call it. Well, they have as much freedom in Franco-Spain in regard to religion as anywhere else, in spite of what happened lately. I had the privilege of going to Spain and I spent seven days in Madrid. I looked around and I gathered official documents, which I have not here at the present time. I remember very well somebody took me around Madrid, and I saw Protestant churches wide open in full activity, and I have seen synagogues Open in full activity in Madrid. Of course Madrid is not the place where you can find many Protestants or Jews. The greater number of Protestants are to be found in the cities on the border of the Mediterranean sea and the Atlantic ocean. There are about 28,000 or

30,000 Protestants in Spain and they have the right of worship. I know there are certain restrictions which I do not like to see exist, but at the same time to say that their bill of rights prevents any other creed than Catholic to exist is not the truth. It is not the state of mind of the government of Spain at the present time, although much has been said against Spain in that connection.

If I were to read to the house the declaration of Sir Basil Brooke of Northern Ireland some hon. members would open their eyes wide. I will not read it. I said I would try to be calm, as much as I could during the course of my speech. But it is not very interesting and it is not very edifying. There you can find in the mouth of a prime minister full discrimination against religion. If somebody does not believe me I have it here and I can show it to him.

HOUSE Or COMMONS

Human Rights

Let me refer to the U.S.S.R. Article 133 of the charter states that the people of that country have universal, direct and equal suffrage and at the same time they are allowed to have but one candidate, who has to be a communist candidate. That is not what the article says. Article 141 reads in part:

The right to nominate candidates is secured to public organizations and societies of the working people.

But everyone knows that in the U.S.S.R. those who wish to be candidates have to belong to communist organizations, have to be members of the workers' organizations which are communist, and must be communist or the N.K.V.D. would put them back in line. Everyone in the house knows that. What is the use of having a bill of rights, and setting out the terms very carefully, if you do not put it into operation? It is absolutely useless if that is what happens. We want to be more advanced. We want to go further. We do not want a bill of rights that is not respected. It is absolutely useless to have a bill of rights if it is treated in that way.

What is the use of having a bill of rights? I do not say it is all bad. But what about the bill of rights of the United Nations? I have a copy of it here, which is dated December 10, 1948. Let us look at article 16, which reads:

1. Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

Well, it is absolutely illogical to think that we have to protect the rights to found the family and at the same time grant the right to the dissolution of marriage. It is absolutely illogical. We have often heard hon. members speak of the social cell, which is the family. At the same time in the bill of rights we give the right to dissolve marriage. We have a bill on the order paper at the present time to give the right to two provinces to go to the exchequer court for divorce.

Topic:   HUMAN RIGHTS
Subtopic:   DECLARATION TO ENSURE FUNDAMENTAL
Sub-subtopic:   REFERENCE TO SUPREME COURT AS TO JURISDICTION
Permalink
CCF

Stanley Howard Knowles (Whip of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation)

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. Knowles:

They have the right to come to this parliament now.

Topic:   HUMAN RIGHTS
Subtopic:   DECLARATION TO ENSURE FUNDAMENTAL
Sub-subtopic:   REFERENCE TO SUPREME COURT AS TO JURISDICTION
Permalink
LIB

Pierre Gauthier

Liberal

Mr. Gauthier (Portneuf):

They have the right to come to the Senate, but it is a special law. With his bill the hon. member is giving a new divorce court to Quebec and Newfoundland. Whether he likes it or not, that is what he is doing to those two provinces. However, we will debate the issue when it is brought before the house.

I find article 16 of the United Nations bill of rights to be illogical. If the family is the basis of society, then why put anything in that article to dissolve the family and break

it up? It is logical to my mind that if you divorce a husband and wife you break up the family. Surely that is logical and reasonable to suppose. If you break the marriage, you break the children. And if you break the children, how can you avoid breaking the nation?

After the fall of France I heard French statesmen saying that the cause of its fall was that the families were too small, and that France had been decreasing in population. I have seen that after the war the French government has given special subsidies to families along the lines of our family allowances in Canada. They give, too, special rates on railways for the benefit of large families, and these rates include the children as well as the fathers and mothers. They believe what they have said, and1 they are being logical.

If we want a bill of rights, then we should study it carefully. I have made reference to other countries which have used discriminatory methods. I have noted that within the last month or two there has been in Sweden indication of a democratic gesture. In that country Catholics and Jews did not have the right to hold positions in the government, but I believe within the last while that process has been changed whereby Catholics and Jews are now entitled to hold government positions. This is quite an improvement.

Then the federal constitution of Switzerland does not permit Jesuits to conduct normal activities within that country, nor did they have the right to restore the old monasteries of that order.

I say that if we want a bill of rights in Canada we had better be very careful, and give it study for a long time. We shall have to call to our aid the most intelligent and the most objective-thinking people in our country. We will have to bring to our help the better elements of every province, so that our constitution may be respected, and so that in none of the provinces, after a bill of rights has been accepted and adopted', will we find discrimination such as is now found, and particularly in respect of the school question in the other provinces. I believe Quebec set a good example on that special item, one that should be followed by all the provinces of Canada.

I have no doubt that a number oi members will not take seriously what I am saying. I assure them however that I am serious and that what I am saying is true. Indeed, I could prove it by documents I have in my possession. So, once again let us study this bill of rights, before adopting it, so that we may be more logical in our actions than some other countries have been.

Topic:   HUMAN RIGHTS
Subtopic:   DECLARATION TO ENSURE FUNDAMENTAL
Sub-subtopic:   REFERENCE TO SUPREME COURT AS TO JURISDICTION
Permalink
LIB

Walter Edward Harris (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)

Liberal

Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) is most anxious to take part in this debate-

Topic:   HUMAN RIGHTS
Subtopic:   DECLARATION TO ENSURE FUNDAMENTAL
Sub-subtopic:   REFERENCE TO SUPREME COURT AS TO JURISDICTION
Permalink

March 24, 1952