PREMIER'S
OFFICE
REGINA, January 19th, 1959.
The R t . Hon. J . G . Diefenbaker, Q.C.,
Prime Minister of Canada,
OTTAWA, Ontario.
My dear Prime Minister:
The second s e s s i o n of t h e Twenty-fourth
Parliament w i l l undoubtedly soon be considering B i l l
C-60 "An Act f o r t h e Recognition and P r o t e c t i o n of
Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms", which had i t s
f i r s t reading i n t h e House of Commons on September 5th,
1958. This b i l l , which i s designed t o recognize and
d e c l a r e t h e existence of c e r t a i n b a s i c r i g h t s and
fundamental freedoms i s a matter of concern, n o t only
t o members of Parliament, but a s you can w e l l appreciate,
t o t h e members of t h e t e n p r o v i n c i a l L e g i s l a t u r e s of
Canada and, f o r t h a t matter, t o every c i t i z e n of t h i s
country. With t h e o b j e c t i v e s of t h e b i l l , few Canadians
would disagree. The i d e a of rendering more secure those
human r i g h t s and fundamental freedoms t o which t h e b i l l
makes reference i s a worthy one. I n 1947, t h e Province
of Saskatchewan enacted a B i l l of Rights Act, designed
t o a s s u r e freedom of r e l i g i o n and speech and freedom from
discrimination i n a l l aspects of l i f e i n s o f a r a s i t i s
w i t h i n t h e power of a p r o v i n c i a l L e g i s l a t u r e t o do so.
Thus, i n a sense, your own province has pioneered t h e
road toward expanded human r i g h t s and b a s i c freedoms.
Other provinces have enacted l e g i s l a t i o n i n
s p e c i f i c f i e l d s as, f o r example, i n t h e f i e l d of employment,
where f a i r employment p r a c t i c e s l e g i s l a t i o n has become t h e
r u l e r a t h e r than t h e exception.
.............p
age 2..
The R t . Hon. J.G.
Diefenbaker, Q.C.
January 1 9 t h , 1959
To d a t e , t h e o b j e c t i v e s of a b i l l o r r i g h t s
have been sought by o r d i n a r y l e g i s l a t i o n , s i n c e such
a c t i o n a s p r o v i n c i a l L e g i s l a t u r e s have taken could o n l y
be achieved i n t h i s manner. While I e n t e r t a i n many
r e s e r v a t i o n s concerning t h e e f f e c t i v e n e s s of l e g i s l a t i o n
i n c o n t r o l l i n g o r d i r e c t i n g human conduct i n many f i e l d s ,
n e v e r t h e l e s s , such l e g i s l a t i o n h a s i t s p l a c e i n a t l e a s t
c l e a r l y s t a t i n g t h e views which a m a j o r i t y of t h e people
of a province o r of a n a t i o n may hold on i s s u e s r e l a t i n g
t o t h e conduct of human a f f a i r s . But what a L e g i s l a t u r e
o r Parliament may do, a f u t u r e L e g i s l a t u r e and a f u t u r e
Parliament may undo. Thus, it i s t o be recognized t h a t
b i l l s of r i g h t s which f i n d expression i n o r d i n a r y s t a t u t e s
can b e ephemeral t h i n g s , and under p r e s s u r e , when t h e y a r e
most needed, can suddenly disappear. Subsequent l e g i s l a t i o n
of a p a r t i c u l a r n a t u r e w i l l have t h e e f f e c t of r e p e a l i n g
e a r l i e r l e g i s l a t i o n of a g e n e r a l c h a r a c t e r and s o i t may
w e l l b e t h a t a B i l l of R i g h t s passed today w i t h t h e utmost
good f a i t h , may g r a d u a l l y be w h i t t l e d away by s p e c i f i c
enactments over a period of years. Thus when i t i s sought
t o r e s o r t t o i t s premises i t may be found t o v i r t u a l l y
have vanished i n t o t h i n a i r .
For t h i s reason, many Canadians f e e l t h a t i n
o r d e r t h a t t h e human r i g h t s and fundamental freedoms of
which t h e b i l l i n q u e s t i o n speaks may b e rendered s e c u r e ,
t h e y ought t o f i n d expression, n o t i n an o r d i n a r y Act of
Parliament but r a t h e r i n amendment t o t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n of
Canada, The B r i t i s h North America Act.
Now i t w i l l b e r e c a l l e d t h a t i n 1950, t h e
F e d e r a l Government convened meetings i n t h e months of
January and September, a t t e n d e d by r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s of t h e
F e d e r a l Government and by t h e Premiers and Attorneys
General of t h e t e n provinces of Canada f o r t h e purpose of
c o n s i d e r i n g methods by which The B r i t i s h North America Acts
1949) might b e amended i n f u t u r e . Unfortunately,
(1867
-
The R t . Hon. J . G .
Diefenbaker, Q.C.
January 19th, 1959
t h e meetings r e s u l t e d i n no very t a n g i b l e recomendations
f o r a c t i o n , but c e r t a i n general c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s were made
of t h e provisions of t h e Acts, i n s o f a r a s they concerned
amendment, these being s i x i n a l l . They included:
(1) provisions which concerned Parliament only;
(2) provisions which concerned p r o v i n c i a l
L e g i s l a t u r e s only;
(3) provisions which concerned Parliament and
one o r more but not a l l of t h e p r o v i n c i a l
Legislatures;
(4) provisions which concerned Parliament and
a l l of t h e p r o v i n c i a l L e g i s l a t u r e s ;
( 5 ) provisions concerning fundamental r i g h t s
(as, f o r instance, education, language,
solemnization of marriage, a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of
j u s t i c e , etc.) and amendment of t h e amending
procedure; and
(6) provisions which ought t o be repealed.
Certain recomendations by t h e Attorneys-General
of each province were made concerning t h e method by which
each group of c o n s t i t u t i o n a l enactments might be amended and
upon t h e s e t h e r e was general agreement.
It was g e n e r a l l y agreed t h a t p r o v i s i o n s
concerning fundamental r i g h t s should be added o r amended
by an Act of t h e Parliament of Canada and by Acts of t h e
L e g i s l a t u r e s of a l l of t h e provinces and t h i s appears t o
have been a reasonable approach t o a very fundamental
problem.
B i l l C-60, t o which you and members of P a r l i a ment w i l l be giving a t t e n t i o n s h o r t l y , i n my view, should
l a y t h e foundation f o r t h e p r o t e c t i o n of human r i g h t s and
..............p
age 4..
..
The R t . Hon. J . G .
Diefenbaker, Q.C.
January 19th, 1959
fundamental freedoms i n t h e soundest and most d e f i n i t e
manner possible. To include t h e type of provision t h e r e i n
contained i n an ordinary s t a t u t e of Parliament would r e s u l t
i n a t l e a s t two important l i m i t a t i o n s . F i r s t i t w i l l
r e s t r i c t t h e a p p l i c a t i o n of t h e p r i n c i p l e s of t h e b i l l t o
m a t t e r s s o l e l y w i t h i n t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n of Parliament a s s e t
o u t i n The B r i t i s h North America Act. A t once, t h e e f f e c t i v e ness of t h e s e p r i n c i p l e s i s s e r i o u s l y r e s t r i c t e d . To broaden
t h e a p p l i c a b i l i t y of t h e s e fundamental r i g h t s t o encompass
a l l f a c e t s of Canadian l i f e , it appears t o me t o be necessary
t o incorporate t h e provisions i n an amendment t o The B r i t i s h
North America Act i t s e l f , This w i l l r e q u i r e t h e concurrence
of t h e provinces, i t i s t r u e , but i t seems t o me t h a t i n
securing t h e concurrence of t h e provinces a very g r e a t advantage w i l l be secured through p u b l i c debate and discussion
and t o t h a t type of consideration which a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l
amendment i s bound t o provoke.
Secondly, only by placing t h e s e fundamental
r i g h t s and freedoms i n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l form, w i l l they stand
above t h e l i s t s of d a i l y b a t t l e and controversy which a r e
bound t o w h i t t l e away o r d e s t r o y p r i n c i p l e s which may
appear t o stand i n t h e way of expediency o r e f f i c i e n c y a s
any p a r t i c u l a r government may view i t a t some f u t u r e time.
For t h e s e reasons, I urge you t o reconvene t h e
c o n s t i t u t i o n a l conference of Federal and P r o v i n c i a l Governments
which was held i n 1950 and t o submit t o i t your proposals f o r
an amendment t o t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n which w i l l contain a
statement of human r i g h t s and fundamental freedoms i n c l e a r
and e x p l i c i t form. These proposals f o r amendment may then
be considered, debated, and incorporated a s an amendment t o
The B r i t i s h North America Act. I am of opinion t h a t t h e
amendments should be s e t o u t i n a v e r y s p e c i f i c way t o
provide t h a t t h e r i g h t s which you have i n mind a r e r i g h t s
which a r e t o be guaranteed t o a l l Canadians and t h a t a
breach of them w i l l be enjoined by simple l e g a l process.
............,.p
age 5...
The R t . Hon. J.G.
Diefenbaker, Q . C .
January 19th, 1959
Accompanying t h i s l e t t e r i s a d r a f t amendnent
which I b e l i e v e was considered some y e a r s ago by a nonp a r t i s a n conanittee on c i v i l r i g h t s , c o n s i s t i n g of eminent
lawyers and o t h e r s , t o which I f e e l r e f e r e n c e can again be
u s e f u l l y made today. I commend i t s c o n s i d e r a t i o n , and I
s h a l l be pleased t o h e a r from you concerning t h e s u g g e s t i o n s
concerned t h e r e i n contained and t h o s e set o u t i n t h i s
communication.
Yours s i n c e r e l y ,
Encl. (1)
T.C.
Douglas.
Proposed Amendment t o t h e B r i t i s h
North America Act, Assuring
Fundamental Rights and Freedoms
1.
This Act s h a l l be known a s The B r i t i s h North America
Act, 1959.
2.
The B r i t i s h North America Act, 1867 i s amended by
adding a f t e r Section 147 t h e following sections:
"148. Notwithstanding anything i n t h i s Act, i t
s h a l l not be lawful f o r t h e Parliament of Canada o r
t h e L e g i s l a t u r e of any Province t o make laws:
-(a) abridging freedom of speech and expression
o r of- t h e p r e s s o r o t h e r means of communication,
o r freedom of r e l i g i o n , o r t h e r i g h t of lawful
assembly, a s s o c i a t i o n o r organization;
(b) r e q u i r i n g o r imposing excessive b a i l o r c r u e l
o r unusual punishment o r e x i l i n g Canadian
citizens;
( c ) s u b j e c t i n g any person t o unreasonable i n t e r f e r e n c e
w i t h h i s o r her privacy, family, home o r correspendence;
(d) s u b j e c t i n g any person t o a r b i t r a r y a r r e s t o r
d e t e n t i o n o r denying t o any person t h e r i g h t ,
a f t e r a r r e s t , t o be promptly informed of t h e
charges a g a i n s t such person and t o t r i a l w i t h i n
a reasonable time, o r t o be r e l e a s e d ;
(e) suspending t h e r i g h t t o habeas corpus o r depriving
any person of a f a i r t r i a l o r t h e r i g h t t o be
represented by counsel;
( f ) depriving o r r e s t r i c t i n g t h e r i g h t of any person
t o own, l e a s e o r otherwise t o hold and enjoy
property.
"149. The r i g h t s provided i n Section 148 s h a l l b e enjoyed
without d i s t i n c t i o n o r d i s c r i m i n a t i o n on account of race,
..........page
2.......
sex, r e l i g i o n o r language and:
(a) t h e r i g h t t o be a member of o r t o v o t e f o r
_ ' t h e e l e c t i o n of Members of t h e Parliament
of Canada o r t h e L e g i s l a t u r e of any
Province;
(b) t h e r i g h t t o employment a t any occupation
and the r i g h t t o work;
( c ) t h e r i g h t t o education; and
(d) t h e r i g h t t o enjoy membership i n any
professional a s s o c i a t i o n ;
s h a l l not be abridged on account of race, r e l i g i o n ,
language o r sex.
"150. The r i g h t s conferred by S e c t i o n s 148 and 149 of
t h i s Act s h a l l not be deemed t o abridge any e x i s t i n g
r i g h t s of any person.''