Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roseiown-Biggar) moved:

That, in the opinion of this house, consideration should be given to the advisability of taking whatever steps are necessary to amend the British North America Act so as to include therein the following heading and sections:

Mr. D. J. Walker (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Justice):

Mr. Speaker, may I first compliment, on behalf of the members of the house, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar on his eloquent and at the same time succinct outline of this problem which faces all of us. I want to say what a pleasure it is to sit opposite the hon. member for Rose-town-Biggar. He enunciates principles and

Human Rights

he enunciates them well. While I seldom have been able to agree with him, on this occasion I think the majority of the members of the house do so. We respect him because of his parliamentary ability and also because he is a very kindly man.

May I say that it is very fitting that we should pause today in our mad rush of material thinking to consider matters which are far more important, matters of the spirit. Transcending all others is the question of our freedom. This is close to all our hearts and I trust, Mr. Speaker, that in this debate which takes place after all on private members' day, as suggested by my hon. friend everybody will express himself free of any party affiliations and free of any party duties.

I know the hon. gentleman will have no objection if I briefly trace-because he has taken the opportunity of doing so himself- the history of the proposed bill of rights in this house. Not today, not yesterday but almost 12 years ago a certain member of this house tried to get a bill of rights resolution on the order paper. Not being able to do that, he moved an amendment to the citizenship act in order to bring the matter before the house. Within a short time a petition signed by 500,000 or more Canadians insisted that a bill of rights should be passed by this house.

From that day to the present time, one resolution after another advocating a bill of rights has been placed on the order paper by this certain person. I need hardly identify the member of the house whom I have in mind because to the older members of this house his name is so well known. He is none other than the then member for Lake Centre who is now the Prime Minister of Canada.

The first time he raised this matter was in May, 1946. A year later he took part in a very important debate, the reading of which I commend to all members of this house. In 1947, as found at page 3149 of Hansard, he started the pilgrimage and, as you know so well, the matter has been taken up very ably by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar as well as by many other hon. memners.

As a result of the speech of 1947 tremendous interest was created in Canada with respect to a bill of rights. Not only did the speech catch the imagination of the Canadian people but it was cited in the United Nations and, I understand, was used when the United Nations was drafting its fundamental bill of rights, the universal bill of rights, a year later. Furthermore, one year after the speech of this hon. member the declaration of human rights was passed by the United Nations

Human Rights

assembly, namely in December, 1948. In addition great interest was stirred in England. I found last summer during a visit to parliament at Westminster with some members of that house that our Prime Minister was recalled in one connection in particular, as the champion of the bill of rights.

In 1952 we had his resolution finally placed on the order paper and, his motion having been made and debated, three years later, in 1955, he again moved the same resolution in the same wording. On the same occasion he submitted to the hon. members of this house a draft bill for their consideration; a bill, Mr. Speaker, which was originally drafted by certain honourable members in the other place and amended at that time by the then member for Prince Albert.

May I today very briefly compare the resolution moved by the former member for Prince Albert, as a matter of fact the member for Lake Centre at that time, when that resolution was before the house. It is very short and I would like to read it into the record. It is to oe found at page 714 of the 1952 debates, as follows:

Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Lake Centre) moved:

That, in the opinion of this house, immediate consideration should be given to the advisability of introducing a bill or declaration of rights to assure amongst other rights:

1. Freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press and of radio;

2. That habeas corpus shall not be abrogated or suspended except by parliament;

3. That no one shall be deprived of liberty or property without due process of law, and in no case by order in council;

4. That no tribunal or commission shall have the power to compel the giving of evidence by anyone who is denied counsel or other constitutional safeguards.

And then, Mr. Speaker, I ask you to note the following in particular because it is most important and it always has been the view of the Prime Minister. It reads:

And that as a preliminary step the government should consider the advisability of submitting for the opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada the question as to the degree to which fundamental freedoms of religion, speech and of the press and the preservation of the constitutional rights of the individual are matters of federal or provincial jurisdiction.

Without making any minute comparison of the two resolutions I think it can be said that clause (a) of the resolution presented by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar is similar to clause 1 of the resolution presented by my leader on March 24, 1952, when he was the hon. member for Lake Centre; clause (b) is similar to clause 3, clause (e) is similar to clause 4 and clause (f) is similar to clause 2. There is of course a great deal

of similarity between the two resolutions although there is a difference in implementation.

After reading over the freedoms enunciated in the resolution presented by the then hon. member for Lake Centre it occurred to me to wonder whether, if he had included another clause dealing with freedom of enterprise, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar would have included that in the resolution before the house today.

Mr. Coldwell:

I did not include economic freedom or freedom from monopoly; I should have done so.

Mr. Walker:

I thank my hon. friend for that suggestion.

Mr. Coldwell:

Which is quite different.

Mr. Walker:

I had in mind giving my views on this very important subject, particularly on the principles involved which were so eloquently expressed today and which have been so expressed in the past by my friend the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar; but I think it would be far better and would take far less time if I were to refer to a speech made by the leader of my party when he was the hon. member for Lake Centre in 1947. I shall do so briefly, referring only to a few excerpts from the remarks he made on that occasion as recorded at page 3152 of the debates of this house for May 16, 1947. At that time the then hon. member for Lake Centre stated:

What would a bill of rights do? It would assert the right of the individual to go into the courts of this country, thereby assuring the preservation of his freedoms. These great traditional rights are merely pious ejaculations unless the individual has the right to assert them in the courts of law.

He then discussed the difference between democratic governments and authoritarian governments and stated:

The difference between democratic government and authoritarian government is this, that, while democracy gives rights of the individual against the state, authoritarianism annihilates the rights of the individual. Democracy enthrones the sacredness of human dignity, while authoritarianism enthrones the power of the state.

He then went on to discuss what a bill of rights must declare, in these words:

A bill of rights must declare for this country a government of laws, not of men. And only under a government of laws can there be a full development of the human personality.

He then discussed freedom:

Freedom today must he fought for, as it was in the past. Freedom is indivisible; there cannot be fractional freedom in our country. When the state is supreme over the individual, then every person must be prepared to act on instructions from the state. Then personal freedom ends.

I wonder if the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar will agree with the following:

History shows that if the state plans and provides for the individual, the state must have an unchallengeable right to direct the individual as to where he must go and what he must do. And when that is done, freedom ends.

My final reference is to be found at page 3158 of Hansard of May 16, 1947, where my leader discussed civil liberties in these words:

What are civil liberties? The most sacred things of the human personality. They epitomize our belief in the dignity of the human being; they translate that dignity into rights which the individual can enjoy against the state or against other all-powerful individuals within the state. Civil liberties constitute the individual a sacred being. Civil liberties make him a sovereign in his dealings with the state, provided that he remains within the law.

There we have the situation succinctly and eloquently stated. I must say to my friend the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar that the expressions he used today and on previous occasions when discussing this matter are somewhat similar to those used by the then hon. member for Lake Centre. Year after year for almost 12 years the present Prime Minister has outlined a bill of rights to this house; and without detracting in any way from the honour and recognition due to the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar for having brought in the resolution before us today, and not only today but in 1955 and 1956, I have attempted to outline the history and background of a bill of rights.

I know the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar does not object to my doing so, and by the nodding of his head I took it that he encouraged me in my attempt to outline the history of what I consider to be a movement to ensure our freedom. As we look back over the long pilgrimage of the present Prime Minister in public life we can only conclude that this bill of rights, his brain child, will soon have its fruition and be realized.

It is true, and I say this without reference to politics, that the bill of rights is synonymous with the name Diefenbaker and the name Diefenbaker is inextricably bound up in the bill of human rights. The conception of the bill of rights held by my leader is that it is a great charter of human freedom. For the Canadian people, particularly in "Cabbagetown" in my constituency of Rosedale, their ideal of freedom is personified in the person of the Prime Minister. His life typifies it. He lives,

breathes and has his being in freedom. I hope it will not sound or be considered political if I suggest that the present government typifies it also, because it is a government free of prejudice, free of fear, free of

Human Rights

any outside interests which control it. The government of the day, with freedom and fearlessness, is attempting to put on the statute books those things which it feels the Canadian people are seeking at the present time.

Therefore when the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar moves the resolution he has brought forward today I know he is doing so in the interests of the Canadian people. Because it is not in his nature, I know he is not attempting to substitute himself for the Prime Minister as the champion of this bill of rights, nor in his own mind was he thinking for one moment that the Prime Minister has forgotten the subject closest to his heart over the years. All the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar is doing is helping us out and making his contribution to the fulfillment of the desire of so many millions of Canadians.

May I say that although the Prime Minister might be called the father of the bill of rights, I am sure no hon. member of this house would object to the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar being known as one of the uncles of the bill of rights.

Mr. Coldwell:

The uncle may be right, you know.

Mr. Walker:

Thank you very much. Of course there is one great difference between the resolution presented today by my honourable and learned friend and that advocated by my leader over the years, but it is only a difference in the modus operandi, the way in which it will be worked out. The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar proposes an amendment to the constitution, the British North America Act, and in that regard he has received certain assistance from constitutional lawyers. The Prime Minister on the other hand proposes, not that we should take that circuitous and lengthy way, but that the bill of rights should be enacted as a dominion statute.

Now may I say this lest there be any doubt about it. The government is in favour of a bill of rights, but it is a matter of such importance and of such far-reaching consequence, that when it is enacted it will rank with the important constitutional documents of western democracy. There is no question about that. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we must move cautiously. There is a great deal of homework to be done, because the Liberal government which occupied office for 22 years spent part of 11 years in opposing a bill of rights. Never did the opportunity really come for a vote on this important subject. Therefore for the first time the skilled law officers

Human Rights

of the crown have had their attention turned to implementing a bill of rights and the working out of this problem.

I am delighted to learn from the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar that one of those who serve under him, the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway, I understand himself a lawyer, is going to expound to this house how we can bring a bill of rights into being. I would be delighted to have his assistance. Here are some of the problems which must face the government and hon. members before an act can be finally passed. I am not going to solve them at this time; I am going to outline them very briefly, and I would be glad to have the assistance of the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway.

First, should a bill be submitted to the Supreme Court of Canada and, if so, how? Should it be a draft bill, with the question asked as to whether it is within the jurisdiction of the federal parliament, keeping in mind, Mr. Speaker, that in constitutional law Canada is woefully lacking, as the hon. member I am sure will agree, in decisions on questions of this kind? In other words, where do the rights of the dominion cease under section 91 of the British North America Act and where do the rights of the provinces under section 92 begin, particularly when one discusses such abstract but very real values as freedom? Second, should we submit a series of questions to the supreme court? As my hon. friend no doubt is fully aware, to do so is very difficult because we must frame questions of law as distinct from questions of policy which latter, of course, the supreme court will not deal with.

Third, should we have a parliamentary committee to explore and agree on a draft that will be suitable to parliament when it finally reaches parliament? Fourth, would it be premature to submit a draft to the supreme court and then, having their approval, come back to the house to find that it is not acceptable to hon. members, or should the government by-pass the courts and reach rapport with the provinces by calling them into session, having a dominion-provincial conference on the question of a bill of rights, in which the property and civil rights of the provinces would be properly protected? Fifth, should the government itself draft a bill for the approval of and amendment by the provinces, send it to them and have them deal with it? Sixth, should we draft a strictly federal bill? Is this possible under the circumstances, in view of the property and civil rights of the provinces?

Then we must consider very carefully and with great respect the resolution of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, who suggests

that this legislation should be in the form of an amendment to the British North America Act. If the amendment concerns matters of purely federal jurisdiction, Mr. Speaker, it can be made without provincial consent; but if the matter concerns, as his resolution concerns, matters which are within the peculiar and distinct rights of the provinces then, Mr. Speaker, it is a very serious matter and, as my hon. friend so well knows, would involve its submission to the British House of Commons, but only after the amendment had been concurred in not only by the federal government but by each of the 10 provinces involved. And that, in the history at least of amendments to the British North America Act, is something which is not very often done.

Another problem on which my hon. friends who follow me might assist us is this. Would it be better to avoid an amendment to the British North America Act and substitute a statute instead, as suggested by the Prime Minister? The ninth question is this. Should a bill of rights exclude the application of the War Measures Act in time of emergency? Or how should the War Measures Act be handled in the circumstances if we are to have a bill of rights, as we most certainly hope we shall?

The tenth question is this. Could the whole thing be wrapped up and handled by a declaration of human rights passed by this parliament? I am giving no suggestions at this time for a solution; but I do ask the house to believe that the government has this matter in hand. It is being given very careful consideration by my chief, the distinguished Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton), as well as by myself and the law officers in his department.

The question might be asked; why incorporate freedom in a statute? That question has often been asked and I am sure has been asked in this house. Have we freedom at this time? Yes, we have freedom at the present time; and, of course, although this may appear to my hon. friend to be partisan, we hope we shall continue to have freedom as long as a Conservative government is in power in this dominion. Of course that might be for the next 22 years, and this matter might not appear to be too urgent; but everyone knows -and no one knows this better than the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar-that freedom has a habit of slipping very quickly away in crises and in changes. We know that eternal vigilance is always the price of freedom.

My suggestion to hon. members is this. We have freedom at the present time; but we should have an anchor to which the principles of freedom can be attached. That anchor is a statute, so that new Canadians

and old Canadians can pick up that statute and say, "These are our freedoms; these are our rights."

May I give my French-speaking friends an illustration of the importance of incorporating freedom into law. In 1763, as a result of the treaty of Paris, 60,000 French-speaking Canadians were left in this country; and had it not been for statute and for law, including the Quebec Act of 1774 and subsequent acts, does one think for one moment that the great French Canadian race would have continued its freedom of language, its freedom of religion and its freedom of law? I think these freedoms might have been done away with. But almost 200 years later we find that as a result of incorporating those freedoms into law the 60,000 French Canadian population has increased to a population of almost 5 million, still French speaking, still practising their own religion and still practising their own civil law, a veritable island in a sea of 185 million English speaking citizens on the North American continent.

This is an example of how freedom incorporated into law can succeed. Louisiana, populated by French people, as a result of the Louisiana purchase became part of the United States, and did so without any statutory protection, to preserve their freedoms. Nothing was incorporated into law, with the result that what was once a great French culture and a delightful French people, are gone. They have disappeared; they have been swallowed up in the great American democracy. Why? Because there was no law to protect them.

Mr. Fulton:

No anchor.

Mr. Walker:

As the Minister of Justice points out, there was no anchor to which they could attach their freedoms, no place where they could turn to demand their freedoms. In this connection may I say that even with a law we are, of course, too well aware that our freedoms can disappear.

Russia has a bill of rights. In reading the debates of this house, I was interested to note that as the high-flown phrases of the Russian bill of rights were read to the house one member called out, "Is that the United Nations declaration"? That was a very interesting observation. Of course what a ridiculous situation! It is just as contradictory as bittersweet to have a Russian dictatorship enforcing a bill of rights. It just does not make sense.

Therefore that example is not one which should deter us in adopting a bill of rights; and in saying that I feel I have the backing of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar. On the other hand, we in Canada are different.

96698-183J

Human Rights

Our whole upbringing, our whole concept is democratic. May I quote once more from the speech made by the then member for Lake Centre, who expressed the concept very briefly in these words, as found at page 3150 of Hansard of May 16, 1947:

As I agree that although parliament can make charters, the nation can only achieve what is in those charters, if the heart and soul of man demands the achievement of those ideals. I realize that you cannot make mankind good by legislation, but on the other hand, by legislation you can set out the ideals to which you wish men to attain.

May I adopt those words, Mr. Speaker, and the thoughts contained in them. May I take another example that is a symbol of our freedom. It has been my privilege as the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Justice to work with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police who come within the Department of Justice. In associating with them, I have been amazed and delighted at the manner in which they uphold the law. Their motto is "Maintiens le droit", "Uphold the law"; and, Mr. Speaker, they really do. So different are they from the Russian police who by harsh methods involving brutality and naked force are so well known. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police work through co-operation and good will with the citizens of Canada. Instead of being hard-boiled police officers they are in reality a body of professional men engaged in the work of peace officers, and a magnificent job they have done and are doing. Because we in this world need symbols as well as laws, may I say that in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, with their scarlet-coated tunics and that firm discipline which is their tradition, we have a symbol of freedom within the law.

There is one more matter I should like to discuss. Nothing worth while is ever achieved without a great deal of effort, but it is also true that all things are possible if the human spirit perists in making them possible. Nearly 12 years ago the then member for Lake Centre began his long crusade to obtain a bill of rights for Canada. We trust, Mr. Speaker, that the crusade is almost over, that the consummation of his hopes is almost realized.

In his journey he has been ably assisted by men and women in all walks of life and attached to every party, including the distinguished leader of the C.C.F. group who has moved the resolution we are discussing today. It is our hope that in the debate to follow members in every corner of the house will rise in their places and express their frank views, keeping in mind that this is a question which is above politics. Freedom transcends politics as it transcends almost all other things.

Human Rights

As we all know, Mr. Speaker, the world today is again threatened by a great dictatorship. We have been amazed by the scientific achievements of that dictatorship. Sputnik No. 1 and sputnik No. 2 have been launched. Sputnik No. 10 may in reality reach the moon. The dictatorship which threatens us may reach the moon, but, Mr. Speaker, it cannot reach God. It cannot reach God because here you have a dictatorship which has not only denied the deity but has irrevocably and ruthlessly crushed all human freedom. That dictatorship will be destroyed not from without but from within, because no civilization has long survived which has abolished any conception of human freedom and at the same time has turned its back on the deity.

By contrast here we are in this dominion, this democratic nation, with the opportunity to incorporate our present freedoms in a statute. My respectful submission to hon. members, Mr. Speaker, is this: May we enshrine freedom in our hearts and may we anchor freedom in our statutes in perpetuity just as securely as we can.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to have the opportunity to support the motion for a Canadian bill of rights placed on the order paper by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, and it is a pleasure to be able to follow the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Justice who has spoken fair words and generous sentiments.

Few matters can be of more importance to the true interests of the Canadian people. To be sure, we are not concerned here with the material standards and welfare of Canadians but with the spiritual foundations of our society. Man does not live by bread alone, and our society cannot flourish or even survive among the challenges and shocks of the modern world if we cannot restate, spell out and guarantee by law the basic human rights and freedoms of Canadians.

When Canada signed the charter of the United Nations at San Francisco in 1945 she accepted as one of the primary objectives of the United Nations "human rights and fundamental freedoms for all" as referred to in the preamble of the charter. Since 1945, of course, the United Nations has gone farther and under the inspired and inspiring leadership of Mrs. Eleanor Roosevelt has adopted without dissent the United Nations declaration of human rights.

Canada supported that declaration, but what have we done about implementing it? We have given to it the lip service of our political leaders. At the same time we have consigned it to a pigeonhole in one of the

departments of government. The Prime Minister, then the member for Lake Centre, wrote these words in October, 1952, in a pamphlet series called "Food for Thought":

The international declaration of human rights which was accepted by the United Nations should be placed before parliament for ratification and acceptance. Three years have gone by since it was accepted by the United Nations, but as yet Canada has not acted.

It is more than three years now, and six months have gone by since the Prime Minister assumed office. This is not a long time, to be sure, but we cannot help but be concerned. There is still no indication of any plan or intention of the government to lay the United Nations universal declaration before parliament for ratification and acceptance. We ask therefore in the course of this debate that the Prime Minister, if need be through one of his ministers, prove himself as good as these words he spoke in 1952 by making a simple statement that this will be done.

Of course the motion now before the house covers only part of the ground covered by the United Nations declaration. This motion calls for a bill of rights for Canada, for certain basic personal rights to be embodied in the British North America Act as part of our constitution. The United Nations declaration, on the other hand, went on to set forth certain economic and social rights and opportunities which should be the birthright of every child born into this world of potential abundance and freedom. The United Nations declaration mentioned economic rights and social opportunities such as the right to work, the right to shelter, medical care and education; the right to security in the event of sickness, widowhood, unemployment and so on.

We are not concerned with those opportunities in this motion. We are concerned only with the so-called civil and political rights, those liberties of the individual which should be marked out in the constitution itself as free from invasion by any government or agency, by any business or court, by any official or policeman.

It was these civil and political rights that the distinguished Dr. Charles Malik of Lebanon, then rapporteur of the human rights commission of the United Nations, had in mind when he addressed the Canadian institute at Lake Couchiching in 1950, I think it was. I should like to quote his inspiring words. He said:

Today we find ourselves In a situation, all the world over, in which man's simple essential humanity-his power to laugh and love and think and change his mind, in freedom-is in mortal danger of extinction by reason of endless pressures from every side; governmental regulations and controls, social interferences the maddening noises of civilization, the sheer multiplicity and crowding

in of events as a result of the contraction of the world, the dizziness of his mind from the infinity of material things to which he must attend.

I would add, by way of interpolation, in mortal danger of extinction, too, from the vast and anonymous aggregations of private capital, armed with the latest techniques of applied psychology, and ready to control, manipulate and erase the individuality of employees and consumers alike in their quest for greater profits and power. Dr. Malik went on to say:

Under this external social and material pressure man is about to he completely lost. What is needful therefore is to reaffirm for him his essential humanity: to remind him that he is born free and equal in dignity and rights with his fellow men, that he is endowed by nature with reason and conscience, that he cannot be held in slavery or servitude, that he cannot be subjected to arbitrary arrest, that he is presumed innocent until proved guilty, that his person is inviolable, that he has the natural right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion and expression; and so down the list of proclaimed rights. It is this reaffirmation, if only he needs it, that might still save him from being dehumanized. For society and the state under modern conditions can take perfect care of themselves: they have advocates and sponsors on every side; their rights are in good hands. It is man, who is in danger of becoming extinct. It is man who is the unprotected orphan, the neglected ward, the forgotten treasure. And therefore it is good that the declaration has not lost sight of its main objective; to proclaim man's irreducible humanity, to the end that he may yet recover his creative sense of dignity and re-establish his faith in himself.

Of course, that is part of the process upon which we are embarked today in striving for a Canadian bill of rights. The need for that bill of rights is more compelling now than it has ever been. Past experience shows the need, and future trends even more underline that need. Who could read George Orwell's nightmarish vision of the world of the future as pictured in his novel "1984" without hoping that it was a warning rather than a prophecy of things to come? Who can put out of mind the telescreen that you cannot shut off, the telescreen that watches you even as you are watching it? Who could put out of mind the hidden microphone, the wiretapping, which can pick up every whispered intimate word? These things are scientifically possible now, and I venture to think that George Orwell, who wrote his book in 1948-the title is inverted, 1984- was describing trends, not only in Soviet Russia but trends about which we must be concerned here and now. Who can consider the prospect of an atomic arms race without feeling that in an atmosphere of insecurity, fear, suspicion and hatred our basic political rights would be in greater jeopardy in the next few years than ever before? Well, that is the future. Past experience, too, proves how precarious are the basic liberties we

Human Rights

prize. It is true that the preamble to the British North America Act states that Canada shall have a constitution similar in principle to that of the United Kingdom, and that should be a guarantee to our citizens of at least those rights of habeas corpus and Magna Carta which are part of our British heritage.

These words guarantee us nothing of the kind. They have no legal force. The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar referred to the order in council of October 6, 1945, which swept aside the centuries-old right of habeas corpus for those persons who had been implicated in the allegations made by Igor Gouzenko. They were seized and held incommunicado, held without a hearing or appeal and without benefit of legal counsel. We all breathed a sigh of relief in Canada when that star chamber proceeding had come to an end and those accused persons were put on trial in the ordinary criminal courts, with the safeguards and the rights and procedures of which they were then able to avail themselves.

Let us take another example. Legislation passed by this parliament in 1944 empowered the dominion government to seize and send to Japan numbers of Canadian citizens of Japanese origin, without charges, without trial, without any offence having been committed or alleged to have been committed by any of them. They were exiled to a foreign land by arbitrary government action. The privy council held this legislation to be perfectly valid. In the absence of a Canadian bill of rights they held properly, and had no alternative but to hold that this vicious legislation was valid. However, in this case public opinion, led I am proud to say by the members of this group, was able to prevent the act from being carried out. It was valid law in the absence of the kind of bill of rights as part of our constitution that we are now discussing.

These things can happen, have happened in the past and will happen in the future so long as, in the words of Jeremiah, "The heart of man is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked." You cannot rely solely on public opinion to protect personal and minority rights. Indeed, these rights are as often as not threatened by the tyranny of the majority. You cannot rely on our courts because, barring some question of jurisdiction between the provinces and the dominion, the courts have no legal constitutional safeguards to apply and interpret in defence of personal rights.

We are often reminded in speeches on this subject of the threat to our democratic institutions posed by totalitarian tyrannies,

Human Rights

whether of the communist or fascist variety. A distinguished writer and critic, the late Dr. B. K. Sandwell, pleading for a Canadian bill of rights as part of a delegation to parliament in 1951, said this:

It is not enough to say that we are fighting for freedom against tyranny. We must provide man with a positive and specific dynamic faith in our way of life; one in which they believe.

We were reminded last month by George Kennan, former United States ambassador to Moscow, in one of his Reith lectures which are now being happily broadcast over the C.B.C., that the challenge of Soviet Russia today is primarily social, political and ideological. So this is no time to jettison those civil rights or indeed that striving after social equality which should be the first occupation of a democracy. These things are our secret weapons, more powerful in swaying men's minds and loyalties than all the stockpiles of nuclear bombs.

The Prime Minister has become known as the champion of a bill of rights, but I would remind the house, following what has been said by the hon. member for Rosedale-I should call him the parliamentary assistant- that the late J. S. Woodsworth fought a long and valiant fight against that iniquitous section of the Criminal Code known as section 98. I am also reminded that the record shows that the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Stewart) in 1945 was the first member ever to put on the order paper of this house a resolution calling for a Canadian bill of rights, and that it was that hon. member and not the Prime Minister who in 1947 presented to this house a petition bearing 500,000 signatures in support of a bill of rights and a later petition in the following year bearing some 600,000 signatures.

However, I do not think we need to be invidious about who should get the credit for introducing the subject. We should treat it as the hon. member for Rosedale has done. He said the Prime Minister should be recognized as the father of the bill of rights and the hon. member for Rosetown Biggar as the uncle. If we go into this question at all of who the putative father is, I think we should describe the hon. member for Winnipeg North as the father so far as this house is concerned and the Prime Minister, who is a lawyer, could perhaps be described as the father in law. However, we regret that the Prime Minister, who has been a champion on this subject, has been putting off this matter since forming his government. For instance, on November 1 of last year, as reported at page 649 of Hansard, in answer to a question he said:

The matter is still under advisement and consideration.

I suggest that is a strange reply to come from one whose mind should have been made up on this question above all others, and I regret to say it was the tenor of the remarks of the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Justice. I am afraid of fair words of support for a bill of rights and continued inaction. In order to secure a Canadian bill of rights we may be obliged to triumph over the friends of the bill rather than over its opponents. It would be a great pity if the matter continued to be put off by this house until say after just one more election, in the belief that perhaps one province of Canada is opposed to that bill of rights, a belief which I hold to be wholly erroneous.

As reported in Hansard of February 7, 1955, the present Prime Minister, in supporting the motion for a bill of rights, deplored the action of the Liberal government in not allowing the matter to come to a vote. They prevented a vote of the house, he said, in March of 1952 and again in December, 1953; and again, for that matter, a vote was prevented on the date in question. The Prime Minister said this about that conduct, as reported at page 895 of Hansard:

I hope that a similar course will not be followed which simply has the effect of killing discussion and a vote, for the resolution then goes to the foot of the list and there is no possibility during the session of it coming up for further hearing.

What an ironic commentary on the conduct of public affairs if that were to be the fate of the present resolution; that is, if the government, expressing fair words for the principle, yet allowed the matter to be talked out today. Surely the time is ripe for a decision on a matter which receives the support, I am sure, of the vast majority of the members sitting in this house.

This is an urgent matter. The Prime Minister himself said so in 1952, so it can hardly be less urgent now. In the magazine Canadian Business of September, 1952, the then hon. member for Lake Centre wrote that he had-

-tried to add a bill of rights to the citizenship bill on March 7, 1946. "We still haven't a bill of rights, but I am still trying."

To which I might add in parenthesis, "So are we". He went on to say:

I've believed in such a bill to act as an anchor of liberty all along, but now we are in urgent need of such protection.

But as I say, the passage of six years, the mounting challenge, in an age of conformity and anxiety, to man's precious right to be wrong, to be different, to be exasperating for the right as he sees it-these things add to the urgency the Prime Minister referred to in 1952.

What is the need that is so urgent? It is to write into our constitution certain common rights of Canadian citizenship which are recognized by no law today, such as free speech, freedom of assembly and the right to privacy. Note that this motion really grasps the nettle, for it asks that these civil rights be written into our constitution ex-plicity by amending the British North America Act by adding as section 148 a binding declaration of the rights of the Canadian people. It proposes that, in Hotspur's words, "Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety".

The parliamentary assistant questioned whether this provision should be written into the constitution. I say it must be written into the constitution. This motion rejects the sufficiency of a declaration referred to by the parliamentary assistant, which would be merely an act of this parliament. It also rejects the notion that the civil rights of a Canadian should be looked for partly in the legislation of this parliament, partly in the legislation of the provinces, and partly in the common law as it is administered by the courts.

No; these rights must be embodied in the constitution itself, where alone they would be equally applicable to all Canadians in every province of Canada. We propose to build on hardpan, not upon sand. Common citizenship deserves common civil rights, immutable save by the difficult process of constitutional amendment.

The suggestion that we should rest content with a mere declaration of this parliament is not sufficient. Sometimes the call has been for a solemn declaration of rights in this parliament. At this session of the house we have been trying to find out the difference between solemn campaign promises and the ordinary kind, and we have found that both contain a great deal of air and water. Even a solemn declaration of rights by this parliament would be little better than a pious expression of good intentions, for what one parliament grants another parliament can take away.

Let us look at the experience of our great neighbour to the south. For 10 years the ugly, hysterical, vindictive clouds of McCarthyism darkened the liberties of the people of the United States. An ex-communist informer became a public hero. Teachers were dismissed if they did not extoll the materialist values of free enterprise. It was as much as your job was worth if you had been associated with a communist in your college days. But the United States supreme court slowly but consistently, in a series of decisions, reminded the people of the United States that they were

Human Rights

born free. Men imprisoned not for what they did but for what they thought were set at liberty. Guilt by association was found to offend against the United States bill of rights. But no one seriously doubts that if those rights had not been embodied in the actual United States constitution itself they would have been swept away in those 10 years of fear and suspicion.

I appreciate that the Supreme Court of Canada has tried to protect the civil rights of Canadians in a number of noteworthy decisions. These rights were implicit in our law, but a reading of these cases shows that this is not enough. They must be made explicit in our constitution.

There is the well-known case of Saumur and the city of Quebec, which was reported in 1953. Since 1933 a by-law of the city of Quebec, supported by provincial legislation, was in effect as follows:

It is by the present by-law forbidden to distribute in the streets of the city of Quebec any book, pamphlet, booklet, circular or tract whatever without having previously obtained for so doing the written permission of the chief of police.

Mr. Justice Rand, of our supreme court, a jurist with a refreshing and original gift for analysis and exposition, had this to say about that by-law:

That public ways, in some circumstances the only practical ways available for any appeal to the community generally, have from the most ancient times been the avenues for such communications, is demonstrated by the Bible itself: In the sixth

verse of chapter XI of Jeremiah these words appear:

"Proclaim all these words in the cities of Judah, and in the streets of Jerusalem"; and a more objectionable interference, short of complete suppression, with that dissemination which is "the breath of life" of the political institutions of this country than that made possible by the by-law can scarcely be imagined.

In another part of the judgment of Mr. Justice Rand, he observes that:

Despotism always views with fear and wrath the uncensored printed word.

Yet that by-law was in force in 1933 and has since been in force in one of the cities of Canada. How many like it are on the statute books? Saumur, a zealous Jehovah's witness, succeeded in having this by-law quashed in the Supreme Court of Canada after long litigation and no doubt great expense. But he won only by a decision of five judges as against four dissenting judges and he did not win on the ground of civil liberties but, almost by chance, on another point which swayed one judge. Five of the nine judges decided that the province and city did indeed have the power to enact that obnoxious bylaw. Only four of the nine judges decided that a province had no power to trespass

Human Rights

upon the civil rights such as freedom of religion, due to this being exclusively a matter of federal jurisdiction.

In a sense that case was a retreat from the decision of the majority of the judges in the Alberta press case of 1938. In that case the province of Alberta tried by law to compel newspapers to publish Social Credit doctrine and explanations. The court declared the law invalid. Perhaps that was a pity, because at long last we might have had a chance to find out what Social Credit is. But the court, led by the distinguished Chief Justice Sir Lyman Duff, held that a province could not interfere with the freedom of the press, or for that matter with other basic freedoms.

The last case decided by our own Supreme Court of Canada quashed the iniquitous Quebec padlock law. Under that law the attorney general of the province in his absolute discretion could close down for a period of one year premises suspected of being used to promote a particular political ideology. The Supreme Court of Canada had no difficulty in holding that law to be invalid, not because it trespassed on the civil rights of Canadians but because it was really a matter of criminal law upon which the dominion alone could legislate.

How do these decisions leave the state of our civil liberties? The answer, in my opinion, is in a very precarious state. As the Chief Justice of Canada said in the Saumur case:

We have not a bill of rights such as is contained in the United States constitution.

I would add that we do not have a legal guarantee of free speech or assembly or privacy. We do not have a legal guarantee protecting Canadians from coast to coast against discrimination on account of race, colour or creed. It is time we had.

Therefore the motion of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar proposes a constitutional amendment for a Canadian bill of rights. In reply to the parliamentary assistant, the provinces should be consulted and informed when an amendment to the constitution is involved; but as these rights are primarily matters of federal concern, in many cases though not necessarily wholly so, it is eminently proper that this parliament should take the initiative in securing speedy acceptance of the amendment through the process of adoption by the British parliament.

Some of the basic civil rights of the Canadian people referred in the motion may well be matters of provincial jurisdiction. The matter of discrimination on the ground of colour in the case of a man who tries to get a meal in a restaurant may be such a matter of provincial legislative jurisdiction. But I think it is up to this parliament to enact a constitutional amendment and forward it to

the British parliament after full consultation with the provinces. I do not necessarily say that the full concurrence of all provinces should be obtained; I do not think that to be necessary for a constitutional amendment. I would add that if we at least take the initiative in doing our part I feel sure most of the provinces will concur, even though one or two may wish to abstain.

The house should be glad to note that the proposed amendment leaves out one little word, "property" and includes one other little word "privacy". This is as it should be. It is, after all, a charter of personal rights, not property rights.

The United States bill of rights has a due process clause dealing with property, and what a source of expensive, endless litigation it has been. At one time United States courts actually declared that laws prohibiting child labour in factories were invalid on the ground that this interfered with the right of the owners to do as they pleased with their own property. Industrial, financial and commercial property rights need no constitutional safeguards in Canada. Indeed, an enlightened and humane opinion increasingly regards this kind of property as a trust to be administered for the benefit of the whole community.

But privacy; that is essential. I was glad to see that a Dr. Robbins obtained $3,000 damages against the C.B.C. Chief Justice Scott in Quebec superior court is reported in the newspapers to have said that as the result of publicity on a television program "he was convinced that Dr. Robbins' privacy had been intruded upon."

It is news to me that this constituted a case for damages, but it should. The privacy, the soul, the individuality of people may be drowned in a sea of commercialism. What protection will Canadians have against subliminal advertising, where the advertising message strikes home in the subconscious mind of the individual who is unaware that he is being influenced?

What will be our protection against closed circuit TV, where every minute and movement of the employees' working day is spied upon by security guards or efficiency experts? What is our protection against wire-tapping and hidden microphones, not just in the hands of private eyes looking for divorce evidence but in the hands of police officers and government officials? What about the privacy of individuals hounded by collection agencies with letters and phone calls that sometimes lead to a nervous breakdown? The scientific invasion of the human personality is on. Let that little word "privacy" be one of our constitutional safeguards.

Freedom of speech and association? They are always in danger. We do not have to

look beyond the present session of this house for examples. A foreman on the St. Lawrence seaway project was fired because he drove a car for a Liberal candidate on election day. It was his day off. It had nothing to do with his work as a foreman. But, we are told that a time-honoured-I would say time-dishonoured-practice of this house requires the automatic discharge of a government employee accused in a letter from a member of parliament of political partisanship. No hearing. No charges. What a gross disregard for the personal rights of the individual!

Or take the resolution placed on the order paper recently by the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. LaCroix). It was directed against vague, undefined subversive activities, and if made law would be a means of prosecuting individuals, not for what they did but for what they thought.

Another example can be found in some of the court decisions against picketing in the course of a strike. Some of them offend against the basic civil right of individuals to present their case by word and placard to passers-by and fellow-employees. Freedom of speech is curtailed when picketing is prohibited by court injunction.

Take another case reference to which can be found in Hansard of this session, that of Per Holting. This Canadian citizen was en route in a Scandinavian air lines plane to Los Angeles. He debarked at Winnipeg, left the depot, but was forcibly seized, put back on the plane, and deported to Los Angeles against his will. Of course the conditions of his ticket, and no doubt the air lines franchise, did not allow him to get off in Winnipeg. But these would not prevail over a bill of rights outlawing the forcible exile from Canadian soil of any Canadian citizen.

The examples I have mentioned have occurred within the last few months but let us take another dating back four or five years, the case of Martin, a law student in British Columbia who with the help of D.V.A. credits, qualified himself by taking the necessary examination to practice at the bar in British Columbia. After completing his course he was denied the right to practice by the law society of British Columbia because of his communist opinions. With all respect to the sincerity of those who made that decision, it was in my opinion an indefensible case of discrimination on account of creed or belief.

I think these examples serve to illustrate that these rights are always in danger. These examples may seem trivial but they are not. The fabric of a free society is woven from countless seemingly inconsequential strands. By so much as we deny civil rights to one 96698-184

Human Rights

individual in one particular case, our society as a whole is less free. Shakespeare wrote. "Sure he that made us with such large discourse, looking before and after, gave us not that capability and god-like reason to rust in us unused."

Let us remind ourselves that the full flowering of the human mind and spirit can take place only in a free society and buttress our liberties now by those constitutional safeguards set out in this motion.

Mr. F. D. Shaw (Red Deer):

Mr. Speaker, may I say at the outset that my colleagues and I agree wholeheartedly with the general principle of this resolution. One could hardly declare his belief in democracy without at the same time declaring his belief in the freedoms enunciated in the resolution sponsored by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell). However, I feel we should remind ourselves at this time of the fact that there is probably no place in the world where the citizens of a nation enjoy the freedoms enumerated here more than we do in Canada.

I can well imagine that the press of certain countries knowing that we are debating a resolution of this kind might come forward in their pages tomorrow and de clare that Canada does not have freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of religion and the other freedoms because of the fact that only now are Canadian members of parliament demanding that we be given those things. Despite the fact that reference has been made, and quite properly so, to certain cases where the rights of individuals have been restricted or deprived nevertheless I think it bears repeating at this moment that there is no place in the world so far as I am aware where the citizens of a country enjoy a greater degree of these freedoms than we do right here in Canada.

May I say that I was rather amazed to hear the hon. member for Vancouver-Kings-way (Mr. Macdonald), who made a splendid address, refer to the year 1938 and a certain press bill which, as he said, would have compelled the press to print Social Credit doctrine. I defy him to produce the bill to which he referred and show me where any such provision was contained in the legislation. Mr. Speaker, I am not at the moment defending that legislation. I think it was probably a natural outcome of the climate of the times when tempers on all sides were frayed and doubtless many people said and did things for which they later felt rather sorry; but I do feel that if reference is going to be made to any particular piece of legislation the whole story should be told.

Human Rights

When the hon. member for Rosetown-Big-gar was speaking he referred to the fact that he had no desire in his resolution to interfere with the rights of the provinces. Frankly I find it quite impossible to believe that this parliament could ask for an amendment to the constitution on its own or pass legislation incorporating those things suggested in the resolution without doing that very thing. I am quite positive that any legislation drawn up and passed in that way would be thrown out by the Supreme Court of Canada.

I was quite impressed by the remarks of the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Walker). I thought his approach was fair and quite realistic but I rather regretted that he ended with 10 or so questions and not 10 or so suggested answers. As far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker-I think I voice the views of my colleagues- there is only one logical and sensible approach to this whole thing. First, we would recommend that a joint committee of the Senate and of the House of Commons be set up to, among other things, suggest the form which the proposed legislation should take and probably go so far as to draft a suggested bill of rights. Then we would urge that if the committee did not actually draft the bill, following their studies the law offices of the crown be asked to draw up such a bill and then the provinces be called together in order to consider the matter.

I do not think the hon. member for Van-couver-Kingsway (Mr. Macdonald) discarded the idea of calling the provinces in, but he certainly said he would proceed with the consent of some of them. To my way of thinking, especially since such a bill would deal with property and civil rights, it would be an infringement upon the rights of the provinces under the constitution to proceed in that manner. Therefore, I say, let us call the provinces in. I do not think it would be impossible to reach an agreement on some form of bill. We also believe, Mr. Speaker, that this should be a separate bill and not an amendment to the constitution. It should be a separate and distinct bill of rights.

In referring to this matter, the hon. member for Vaneouver-Kingsway suggested that if it were not an amendment to the constitution, then a succeeding government might alter it or throw it out. Of course, if it is an amendment to the constitution exactly that same thing could be brought about if a future government were determined that it was to be removed from the constitution of this country. I repeat, we believe it should be definitely a separate bill of rights and not an amendment to the British North America Act.

It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, it is not necessary for one to say more than I have said at this time. We agree with the principle of the resolution. We have made a suggestion as to the way we think the whole thing should be dealt with, and I stop with the same thought with which I started, namely let us try not to give the impression to the world at large that we are people without freedom.

I say we have as much freedom as, and probably more than any other country on the face of the earth.

Mr. F. C. McGee (York-Scarborough):

Mr. Speaker, before I commence my meagre contribution to this debate I should like to reply to some of the rather astonishing suggestions put forward by the hon. member for Van-couver-Kingsway (Mr. Macdonald). Unless I was very much mistaken I seemed to hear him asking other members to curtail their speaking activities. Am I correct?

Mr. Macdonald (Vaneouver-Kingsway):

No.

I may have given such an impression but I did not mean to. I did not want the resolution to fail to come to a vote.