Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T05:30:01.919Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Writing the Canadian Bill of Rights: Religion, Politics, and the Challenge of Pluralism 1957–1960

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 July 2014

George Egerton
George Egerton
Affiliation:
History Department, University of British Columbia, Vancouver (B.C.) Canada V6T 1Z1, [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A central feature of Canadian history since the mid-twentieth century has been ‘the rights revolution,’ the quest to articulate and give legal protection to human rights and fundamental freedoms. In many ways, as with other Western nations, this struggle has become the country's defining metanarrative, giving identity, normative ideals and purpose to Canadian nationhood and jurisprudence, especially with the entrenchment of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in the Canadian Constitution of 1982. It is the intention of this article to study historically the complex role of religion in an early phase of the human rights narrative in Canada. The focus is on the religious dimension of the passage in 1960 by the Progressive Conservative Government of John Diefenbaker of Canada's first national human rights instrument, the Canadian Bill of Rights. It will be argued that the churches played an important but ambiguous role in relation to the human rights movement which, in some ways, presented perceived challenges to their own religiously-grounded metanarratives of Canadian history, identity, and destiny. A central thesis advanced is that the 1960 Canadian Bill of Rights reflected and legislated a pluralism which was religiously-positive in integrating the nation's principal religious and political values under the formula affirmed in the bill's Preamble: “that the Canadian Nation is founded upon principles that acknowledge the supremacy of God, the dignity and worth of the human person and the position of the family in a society of free men and free institutions (…).”

Résumé

Un élément central dans l'histoire du Canada, depuis le Deuxième Guerre mondiale, est ‘la révolution des droits,’ cette quête d'articuler et de donner une protection légale aux droits humains et libertés fondamentales. À bien des égards, ce but est devenu la principale méta-narration de la nation, qui donne identité, valeurs normatives et mission à la nationalité et la jurisprudence du Canada, particulièrement après l'enchâssement de la Charte canadienne des Droits et Libertés dans la Constitution canadienne de 1982. Cet article étudie historiquement le rôle complexe de la religion, dans la phase initiale de la narration des droits humains au Canada. Au centre est la dimension religieuse du premier dispositif législatif sur les droits humains, la Déclaration canadienne des droits, que le gouvernement de John Diefenbaker a fait adopter en 1960. L'auteur soutient que les églises jouaient un rôle important mais ambigu dans le mouvement des droits humains, lequel, à certains égards, dénote une mise en cause perçue de leur propre méta-narration religieuse de l'histoire, de l'identité et de la destinée du Canada. La thèse centrale est que la Déclaration canadienne des droits exprimait un pluralisme religieux positif, en intégrant les valeurs nationales, religieuses et politiques, dans la formule du Préambule de la Déclaration: «Le Parlement du Canada proclame que la nation canadienne repose sur des principes qui reconnaissent la suprématie de Dieu, la dignité et la valeur de la personne humaine ainsi que le rôle de la famille dans une société d'hommes libres et d'institutions libres (…)».

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Law and Society / La Revue Canadienne Droit et Société , Volume 19 , Issue 2 , August 2004 , pp. 1 - 22
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Law and Society Association 2004

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 For classic narrations of the human rights story in Canada see Tarnopolsky, Walter, The Canadian Bill of Rights, 2nd rev. ed. (Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1975)Google Scholar and Berger, Thomas R., Fragile Freedoms: Human Rights and Dissent in Canada (Toronto: Clarke, Irwin, 1981).Google ScholarIgnatieff, Michael presents the broader international context of the Canadian story in The Rights Revolution (Toronto: Anasi, 2000).Google Scholar

2 One major exception, a herald of future realignments, was progressive Catholic support for Quebec workers in the Asbestos strike of 1949, an engagement which drew the hostility of the Quebec Government of Maurice Duplessis.

3 Data on Canadian religious affiliation, behaviour and trends are summarized in Bibby, Reginald, Fragmented Gods: the Poverty and Potential of Religion in Canada (Toronto: Irwin Publishing, 1987), c. 1Google Scholar, where weekly service attendance in 1956 for Roman Catholics is listed at 87 % and for Protestants at 61%. Historical and theological analysis of the 1950's can be found in Grant, John W., The Church in the Canadian Era (Vancouver: Regent College Publishing, 1998, c. 1988), c. 8.Google Scholar Despite the expansion of the churches, membership growth failed to keep up with general population increase.

4 Religious dynamics in American foreign policy of this period are analyzed in Jacobs, Seth, “‘Our System Demands the Supreme Being’: The U. S. Religious Revival and the ‘Diem Experiment,’ 1954–55” Diplomatic History 25:4589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar See also Kirby, Dianne, ed., Religion and the Cold War (London: Palgrave, 2003).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

5 “Address by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, Mr. L. B. Pearson, on the Occasion of his Installation as Chancellor, Victoria University, Toronto, February 4, 1952” Lester B. Pearson Papers, NAC, MG 26/N9/5 [Pearson Papers].

6 “Address by Mr. L. B. Pearson Before the Canadian Council of Laymen, Burwash Hall, Victoria College, Tuesday, April 10, 1951” Pearson Papers, ibid., MG 26/N6/4.

7 “An address by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, Mr. L. B. Pearson, delivered at the Yorkminster Baptist Church, Toronto, March 25, 1953” Pearson Papers, supra note 5, MG 26/N9/7.

8 Mutchmor, J. R., Mutchmor: The Memoirs of James Ralph Mutchmor (Toronto: Ryerson Press, 1965) at 137–38, 143, 147, 156.Google Scholar

9 Ibid., at 142.

10 Duplessis' relations with the Catholic Church are analysed in Black, Conrad, Duplessis (Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1977) at Ch. 16.Google Scholar For general analysis of Quebec Catholicism see Hamelin, Jean, Histoire du Catholicisme Québécois: Le XXe siècle, Tome 2, De 1940 à nos jours (St. Laurent, Québec: Boréal Express, 1984).Google Scholar

11 See the author's “Entering the Age of Human Rights: Politics, Religion, and Canadian Liberalism: 1945–1950” Canadian Historical Review (September 2004) LXXXV:3, 451 [“Entering the Age of Human Rights”].

12 The Roebuck - Humphrey correspondence of May-June 1951 expressing frustration at the set-backs for human rights agendas in Canada and the United Nations can be found in the Papers of Arthur Roebuck, NAC, MG 32, C 68, vol. 3/11.

13 For Justice Department attitudes, see MacLennan, Christopher, Toward the Charter: Canadians and the Demand for a National Bill of Rights, 1929–1960 (Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press, 2003) at c. 5 & 6.Google Scholar

14 Ibid., at c. 5.

15 Ibid.; Djwa, Sandra, The Politics of the Imagination: A Life of F. R. Scott (Toronto: McClelland & Stewart, 1987) at c. 18.Google Scholar

16 Smith, Denis, Rogue Tory: The Life and Legend of John G. Diefenbaker (Toronto: Macfarland Walter and Ross, 1995) at 160–64.Google Scholar

17 House of Commons Debates, vol. I (6 January 1958) at 2887–89, 2926–28 [Debates].

18 Debates, ibid. vol. I (12 May 1958) at 5.

19 Justice Department records advising the Justice Minister and the Prime Minister on a bill of rights can be found in NAC, RG 13/18600–8, RG 13/18600–8/1, RG 13/18600–8/2., and John G. Diefenbaker Papers, NAC, MD 26/39765–39810, Microfilm Reel M-9159[Diefenbaker Papers]. For the role of Wilbur R. Jackett and Justice Department officials in drafting the Bill of Rights see Pound, Richard, Chief Justice W. R. Jackett: By the Law of the Land (Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press, 1999) at c. 5.Google Scholar

20 Bora Laskin, “Constitutional power Respecting a Bill of Rights for Canada” (27 June 1958) Diefenbaker Papers, supra note 19, MD 26/39812–39820, M-9159.

21 F. R. Scott speech to Canadian Club, Montreal Star (10 November 1958). See also F.R. Scott to (21 December 1959) F. R. Scott Papers, NAC, MG 30, D 211, vol. 43, H 1231.

22 Diefenbaker's friend, the Toronto lawyer John Fenson, reported in detail on the proceedings of the Ottawa conference. Diefenbaker Papers, supra note 19, MD 26285586, M-7949.

23 Scott, F. R., “The Bill of Rights and Quebec Law” (1959) 37 Canadian Bar Review 135Google Scholar; Bora Laskin, “The Proposed Bill of Rights” 10 December 1958, Diefenbaker Papers, supra note 19, MD 26/39835–39849, M-9159.

24 Memorandum: To The Right Honourable John G. Diefenbaker, April 29, 1959, Diefenbaker Papers, supra note 19, MD 26/4024–25, M-9160; Himel to Fulton, 11 May 1959, end. Draft Canadian Bill of Rights Act, Justice Department Papers, NAC, RG 13, vol. 2800, file 184000–27; also ibid. MD 26 \MD 26/39922–39925, M-9159.

25 The Canadian Bar Association, The Canadian Bar Review (XXXVII: March 1959), p. 263. This volume contains papers reviewing the various attitudes and counsel of members on the proposed bill of rights.

26 Debates, supra note 17 vol. I (18 July 1959) at 293.

27 “Entering the Age of Human Rights,” supra note 11.

28 Dehler was joined by History Professor A. R. M. Lower of Queen's University who offered some much appreciated academic support for Diefenbaker's statutory and declarative approach. “Constitution, Bill of Rights,” typescript with Diefenbaker's hand script markings, dated 2 February, 1959, by Office of the Prime Minister. Diefenbaker Papers, supra note 19, MD 26/40547–40558, M-9160. See also Ottawa Journal (21 January 1959).

29 National Catholic Welfare Conference, “Une Déclaration de Droits” (February 1959) XIC Relations 218.Google Scholar

30 Stuart Ryan, “Charting Our Liberties – The Proposed Canadian Bill of Rights” (Autumn 1959) LXVI: 3 Queen's Quarterly 403; Diefenbaker Papers, supra note 19, MD 26 /MD 26/39930–39938, M-9159.

31 Correspondence regarding the Catholic Archbishops can be found in Justice Department, RG 13, Vol. 2804, file 186000–8–2. Catholic counsels for a “more substantial” instrument, which would give human rights grounding in divine law and recognize collective rights of unions, language groups, professions, and institutions like the family, were reiterated publicly by the Rev. Durocher, Raymond O.M.I., “Protection of Human Rights in Canada” in Our Sunday Visitor, Canada's National Catholic Weekly (17 January 1960) 1.Google Scholar

32 Debates supra note 17, vol. V (1 July 1960) at 5649–50. Diefenbaker admitted to the House that his pledge was “not something original but changed to meet the fact that I am speaking in the Canadian parliament.” What he did not mention was that he had borrowed the text of an American “Freedom Pledge” which had been used in the 1947 Freedom Train, a traveling exhibition of patriotic documents and icons mounted by the American Heritage Foundation, aimed at buttressing national political values against communism. Diefenbaker Papers, supra note 19, MD 26/11384–11408, M-8937.

33 Debates, supra note 17, vol. V (4 July 1960) at 5672–73.

34 Ibid., at 5710–13.

35 Ibid., at 5771.

36 Ibid., at 5922–23.

37 Asked by the Department of Christian Education of the Canadian Council of Churches for a radio interview to discuss his favorite Bible passages, Diefenbaker declined, having his secretary explain “that he endeavors to separate from his public life the religious convictions he holds in private.” Claude Gauthier to Francis Viewpoint, 9 March 1961. Diefenbaker Papers, supra note 19, MD 26/0118077–79, M-7798. A regular attendee, Diefenbaker preferred not to speak in church, but liked to be asked to give the scripture reading.

38 Draft Commons speech, “Preamble,” n.d. but prepared for 7 July 1960. Diefenbaker Papers, supra note 19, MD 26/39612, M-9159.

39 Debates, supra note 17, vol. V (7 July 1960) at 5949.

40 Interview of the Rt. Hon. Davie Fulton by the author (September 18, 1983) Vancouver [hereinafter Fulton interview]. Also, Canada, Parliament, House of Commons Special Committee on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, 24th Parl. (22 July 1960) at 424–25 [Minutes].

41 The ACL draft bill of rights is appended to Minutes, ibid. (19 July 1960) at 299–301.

42 Minutes, supra note 40 (21 July 1960) at 360–97.

43 Minutes, supra note 40 ( 15 July 1960) at 125.

44 Minutes, supra note 40 (27 July I960) at 593.

45 Drafting records are in RG 13/186000–8/2.

46 Minutes, supra note 40 (29 July 1960) at 714–15.

47 Minutes, supra note 40 at 715–17.

48 Fulton remembered with gratitude the cooperative attitude of Paul Martin in the final wording of the preamble and generally in the shaping of the bill. The Conservatives had anticipated a much more partisan approach. Fulton interview, supra note 40.

49 “Report to the House,” Minutes, supra note 40 (29 July 1960) at 669–70.

50 Bill C-79, as amended, “An Act for the Recognition and protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms,” with Part I designated as “The Canadian Bill of Rights,” passed unanimously in the House of Commons, 4 August, and received Royal Assent 10 August 1960. Debates, supra note 17, vol. VII (10 August 1960) at 7552–53, 7948.

51 Debates, supra note 17, vol. VII (1 August 1960) at 7374.

52 Ibid., at 7415–18. As with the Prime Minister's “I am a Canadian” pledge of 1 July 1960, this second pledge was also taken from the documentation of the American Heritage Foundation's Freedom Train of 1947, authored by Joseph Auslander and modified by Diefenbaker to serve in a Canadian context. Diefenbaker Papers, supra note 19, MD 26/11408, M-8937. Diefenbaker, further emulating the American precedent, planned that an original parchment of the embossed Canadian Bill of Rights with its pledge could serve as a prime artifact of nationalism in a Canadian “freedom train” he projected for the Canadian centennial celebrations in 1967. Newman, Peter, “The Canadian Bill of Rights” Maclean's Magazine (12 August 1961), at 20, 49–50.Google Scholar

53 Diefenbaker, text, (30 June 1960) on The Nation's Business, CBC Radio, Toronto, CBC Radio Archives.

54 Debates, supra note 17, vol. VII (2 August, 1960) at 7415–17.

55 The Association For Civil Liberties had repeatedly petitioned the government on human rights, most recently in April, 1959. Its brief had the support of, among others, the Anglican, United, and Presbyterian churches, the Canadian Council of Churches, the Catholic Immigration Bureau of Toronto, the Canadian Labour Congress, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the Canadian Jewish Congress, the Canadian Polish Congress, the Chinese Community Centres Association of Ontario, the Negro Citizenship Association, the National Council of Women, and the Canadian Authors Association. See Minutes, supra note 40 (19 July 1960) at 169–90, 299–301.

56 Minutes, supra note 40 (14 July 1960) at 22–50; and ibid. (21 July 1960) at 360–97.

57 Scott to Michael Pitfield (6 August 1980) cited in Djwa, supra note 15 at 434.

58 Debates, supra note 17, vol. VII (3 August 1960) at 7516.

59 See especially Paul Martin on religious pluralism, Minutes, supra note 40 (27, 29 July 1960) at 593, 715.

60 Minutes, supra note 40 (15 July 1960) at 84.

61 A total of 20,000 illuminated prints were run off by the Queen's Printer in 1960–61. Newman, supra note 52 at 20.

62 The effects of the Bill on subsequent Canadian jurisprudence are reviewed by MacLennan, Christopher, “The Diefenbaker Bill of Rights and the Question of a Constitutionally Entrenched Charter, 1960–1971” in Story, D. C. and Shepard, R. Bruce, eds., The Diefenbaker Legacy: Law and Society since 1957 (Regina: Great Plains Research Centre, 1998) 111.Google Scholar

63 Letter from L. A. Gale (Victoria, British Columbia) to Governor General George Vanier (14 August 1960). Vanier's office passed the letter on to the Prime Minister. Diefenbaker Papers, supra note 19, MD 26/286267–8, M-7949.

64 See the author's “Trudeau, God and the Canadian Constitution: Religion, Human Rights, and Government Authority in the Making of the 1982 Constitution” in Lyon, David & Van Die, Marguerite, eds., Rethinking Church, State, and Modernity (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2000) 90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar