1969-04-16

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the business of the house for the next several days. As hon. members know, conversations have been taking place about the orderly disposition of the remaining stages of the passage of Bill C-150, that is to say, the omnibus Criminal Code bill, and also the proposed motion relating to Canada's participation in NATO. As a result of this, I have had two special orders prepared which I would like to suggest to the house with a view to their being adopted.
The first would relate to the debate on Canada's participation in NATO, which has been proposed for Wednesday and Thursday of next week. That order would provide for a motion to be moved by a minister. This could be amended in the usual way as provided by the Standing Orders. The vote would take place at 9.45 p.m. on Thursday. The Wednesday would be a government day, that is to say, from government time, and Thursday would be one of the days allotted to the opposition under the supply provisions of the rules. It would be specifically understood that the debate would not reduce the number of no-confidence debates that can be brought under Standing Order 58 of the house in this part of the session. It would also be stipulated in the order that those participating in the debate, other than the first spokesman of each party, would be limited to 15 minutes. This is of course so that the maximum number of hon. members may participate in the debate.
Under the terms of the second of the orders that I am proposing, the house would allot five days for the remaining stages of Bill C-150, four of these to be given to the consideration of the proposed amendments and the fifth day to be for the debate on the third reading stage. Since most of the notices of amendments relate to clauses 14, 15 and 18 of the bill,
that is, the clauses dealing with the abortion question, it is proposed that two days be allotted for dealing with those amendments, that is, this sitting day and tomorrow.
There are several notices of amendments to clause 7, that is, the clause concerning the gross indecency provisions of the Criminal Code. The proposal is that a day be allotted for those amendments, that is to say, Friday of this week. The fourth day, that is to say, Monday of next week, would be available for the other amendments, and it would be understood that both private members business and the adjournment proceedings would be suspended during the days this debate would be in progress. The final day, that is to say, next Tuesday, would be for the third reading debate.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)
My suggestion is that the debate on the amendment will begin today, that all questions relating to clauses 14, 15 and 18 be decided tomorrow evening, and that all other votes at the report stage be deferred until Tuesday afternoon, that is to say the first thing after orders of the day are called. The questions concerning third reading would be put to the house on Tuesday evening.
There is general agreement, I believe, that the house must rely on you, Mr. Speaker, to guide our proceedings so that, within the limits provided by any special order, time is available to the house for the consideration of all the major possibilities suggested by the amendments.
The proposed orders are rather long, but copies have already been circulated to the representatives of each of the parties. If there is agreement in relation to the proposed order on the NATO debate, I would like now to move that particular motion.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I take it, Mr. Speaker, that the order on the NATO debate has been adopted. On that basis I wish to move the motion with respect to the allocation of time to Bill C-150.

April 16, 1969
Business of the House


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I want to make sure that there is understanding of the situation. Is the procedure suggested by the President of the Privy Council relating to the NATO debate agreed to?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It is so ordered.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I would therefore like to move the motion with regard to the second of the matters, that regarding the allocation of time to bill C-150.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: These discussions have in fact been taking place and the house leaders and the members of the house are faced with the necessity of trying to accommodate a very difficult and complex debate within our existing rules. The suggestion advanced by the government house leader-with certain changes which we think can be made within the framework of the order as it would be made-are acceptable to us. Often we do foolish things in this house-and in this connection I look particularly at the government, although on occasion the epidemic does spread to this side. But I think that if we were to take the number of amendments which have been introduced and which now appear on Routine Proceedings and Orders of the Day and tried to arrange a debate, it would be impossible to do so in an orderly way unless the house showed the common sense, which I am sure it possesses from time to time, and worked out an order of this kind. So, as I say, with the exception I have noted, we would be agreeable to this suggestion.
However if it should happen that the house as a whole were not prepared to accept the order, I hope sincerely that at least we can arrange for an orderly division of the subject matter so that it will be possible for the members of the house who feel they have a contribution to make to direct their attention to a specific subject matter. We hope that under the direction of Your Honour all aspects of the problem can be debated and all the questions on each aspect put at one time.
An examination of the amendments indicates that there is a natural division of the subject matter, so I sincerely hope the house will accept the motion. If it does not, then I hope that under the direction of Your Honour, exercised when necessary, and with the exercise of common sense our debates will proceed in an orderly way directed to one matter at a time.
[Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale) .1


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, should like to confirm that there have been discussions among the house leaders and that we have worked out proposals which members of my party are prepared to accept.
If I may recapitulate briefly, we think it would be a good idea to limit ourselves to four days debate at the report stage of Bill C-150, and in view of the way in which the amendments presented happen to fall, that two days on abortion, one day on gross indecency and one day on all the other aspects would be a fair apportionment of our time.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what I said that I should not have staid, but at any rate I am sure the house understands.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: Only too well.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We
also feel that if there are to be a number of recorded votes on the various amendments it would be terribly time consuming to take them one by one as they come along, bearing in mind the amount of time it takes to get members together. We think it would be a good idea to have the votes grouped. Therefore we go along with the proposition that all the votes on abortion be taken tomorrow night, and that all those having to do with the other subjects be taken at the beginning of Tuesday's business. We think this is a good idea, and that it would facilitate dealing with this complex measure, giving an opportunity for full discussion at the report stage of the subjects in which by their amendments hon. members have shown that they are interested.
Like the hon. member for Peace River I should like to go one step further and say that if this proposition is not generally agreed to by the house there is a second line of defence we could adopt. I think there might be some kind of agreement that even if it is desired to carry on the debate on abortion for more than two days we could take two days now and then interrupt the discussion, picking up the abortion clauses for additional debate later on. If this could be agreed on it would be a convenient way of dealing with the question.
Otherwise I should like to draw Your Honour's attention to your authority under standing order 75(10) under which you have
April 16, 1969



power to select or combine amendments or clauses to be proposed at the report stage. If it is your sense of the wish of the house that we should spend a certain amount of time on one subject and then move to another, I hope Your Honour will be governed accordingly. However I hope the proposals we worked out as house leaders will be acceptable to the house as a whole.


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, there have been meetings recently at the level of party leaders, or representatives of every party, and as far as we are concerned, we, of the Ralliement Creditiste, cannot accept the government's offer because it is equivalent to closure, which is unacceptable for members who have been freely elected by their constituents.
On December 20, 1968, if I am not mistaken, the house refused to agree to standing order 16A which was equivalent to a muzzle accepted in advance. Therefore, if we refused this permanent muzzle, so to speak, we will refuse it every time the government will try to force it on us. I want to let the government know that some of my colleagues are wide awake and are determined to resist closure whenever the government will try to impose it.
Mr. Speaker, the government has suggested a limitation of the debate; however, as some amendments may be debated at great length, there may be very little time to consider the other amendments on today's order paper.
For those reasons, Mr. Speaker, I feel that every amendment, whatever the hon. member or the party that moved it, should be considered thoroughly. In fact, certain clauses of Bill C-150 are too important to be passed speedily.
Moreover, as excessive speed is reproved everywhere, and as it is generally admitted that one cannot do things fast and well at the same time, we must reject the government's order for closure.
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, in light of that I wonder whether the house would entertain the suggestion that was made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. That is to say, without agreeing to any limitation of time for debate of any of the items we might plan the subject matter of the debate for the next five days; deal with the
Business of the House
proposed amendments with relation to abortion this afternoon and tomorrow, and on Friday devote ourselves to the second of the subject matters that were mentioned. Then on Monday next we might devote ourselves to the amendments dealing with the other aspects of the Criminal Code, and on Monday afternoon or evening review whether it is necessary to return to the subject matter of abortion or any other questions-or possibly arrive at an agreement. I wonder whether there is any disposition to handle the amendments in this fashion.


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, we do not necessarily accept this motion of the government house leader because it is illogical.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, might I suggest that we review this matter tomorrow. By tomorrow the party to my far left may have been exhausted by abortion and ready to discuss other matters.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Lotbiniere on a question of privilege.


André-Gilles Fortin: I would like to inform the hon. member who has just spoken, Mr. Speaker, that it will take more than a Liberal or a Conservative party to exhaust the Social Credit Rally.


An hon. Member:: Ha! Ha! So go and see Mr. Rene Levesque.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Sixteenth report of Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, in French and in English-Mr. Gaston Clermont (Gatineau).
[Editor's Note: The text of the foregoing report appears in today's Votes and Proceedings.]
7572	COMMONS
Housing for Low Income Families [English}


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, there have been some discussions about the reference of the Public Accounts, volumes I, II and III for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1968, and also the report of the Auditor General thereon, to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. If the house would be agreeable, perhaps the house would make an order to that effect so that the committee may continue with its study of these questions.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



HOUSING


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, with your permission I should like to make a brief statement regarding a very special measure by the government that should bear a most significant and far-reaching impact on housing for low income families.
I wish to announce that a new approach to providing housing for low income families will be undertaken in the city of Ottawa under a special arrangement. The experiment involves the construction in a single neighbourhood of row housing units; one half of the units will be sold under the condominium concept and the other half will be rented, in both cases to families with low incomes.
Two such projects will be built-one on the Walkley Road and the other on Morrison Drive-on land owned by Assaly Construction Limited. The sites had originally been set aside for large public housing developments but these were judged unacceptable because of the human disadvantages of their size.
When completed, both areas will provide a well integrated mix of home ownership and rental accommodation in a single community occupied exclusively by low income families.
The housing built for rental purposes will be financed under the public housing provisions of the National Housing Act. The units built for home ownership will be financed directly by Central Mortgage and Housing

DEBATES	April 16, 1969
Corporation with interest on the loans equal to that presently charged for public housing projects.
The Walkley Road project will contain some 125 units of condominium housing and an equal amount of public housing units. The west end project on Morrison Drive will contain some 134 units of condominium housing and an equal number of public housing dwellings.
In the form of row housing, both projects will provide a preponderance of three-bedroom dwellings although two, four and five-bedroom units will also be available. The rents for the public housing units will be based on family income. The emits for ownership will be sold at prices that will enable families to move into two-bedroom accommodation with incomes of $4,900 and into three-bedroom accommodation with incomes of $5,600. Down payments will be as low as $750. In either case-whether for rental purposes of purchase-all of the units will be reserved for families whose incomes do not exceed $7,500.
With this new approach we are attempting to restore and to strengthen the dignity of lower income families. We know from the work of the task force on housing and urban development that very definite sociological and psychological disadvantages result from stacking people in massive public housing projects. While we must continue to concern ourselves with the number of housing units we build each year, we must also ensure that the production of such housing is not just in vertical rows. We must provide people with more choice, with projects of acceptable size, location, design and layout, with an address for each tenant, playground space for children and greater privacy for each member of the family.


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, although we in this party welcome the announcement the minister has just made may I renew a plea that I, the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) and others have made in the past for the minister to give us a statement embracing the over-aE housing picture in which he will say what he intends to do about the question of pubhc housing and about overcoming what he caEed sociological and other factors, which have made much of our public housing unacceptable to him in the past. Although we have asked for such a statement the minister has
April 16, 1969	COMMONS
made a specific statement relating to a specific area, and he is moving ahead in a particular field.
While we welcome the help that will be given to low income groups of Ottawa I submit that the minister ought to make the overall statement I have spoken of in order that other municipalities which may want to move rapidly into the field of public housing may have the benefit of his definitive statement. If he does not make that statement as quickly as possible I suspect those municipalities will be left in the position, as the city of Ottawa was, of having to negotiate each individual project.
I do not think that is good planning and it will not help the minister to maintain good relations with municipalities in other parts of Canada.
Someone was kind enough to send me a copy of the statement the minister has just read to the house. In it there is no indication of what faults were found with the city of Ottawa's original submission with regard to his project. We do not know what sociological factors dismayed the minister. In fact we do not know what bothered him. Again I urge the minister to make an over-all statement as quickly as possible so that municipalities of other parts of Canada may move ahead quickly with the filling of an urgent need, and make housing available to low income families of Canada.


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, we in the N.D.P. welcome the first step which the minister has taken in this project, but we deplore his piecemeal approach in solving our housing problems. This is only a token performance in solving critical housing shortages in the city of Ottawa. I note that 500 units only are to be built in Ottawa under this program, and that the city has asked for 1,600 units to be built. In Toronto alone about
16,000	people are on the waiting list for low rental housing, and many times that number are awaiting for public housing across the country.
One of the most critical areas in our housing crisis is the shortage of public housing units. When we consider the government's record in building fewer than 40,000 units of public housing across the country, which is less1 than one per cent of Canada's total housing stock, we can see the extent to' which this and former governments have fallen short in their performance.
DEBATES	7573
Housing for Low Income Families [DOT] (2:30 p.m.)
We are not the least bit happy with this piecemeal approach. The proper approach, Mr. Speaker, is to have a greater mix of public housing, together with the private housing sector. The more important group is the one between $4,000 and $7,500. Again, this is only a token approach to this group. The people of Canada cannot wait for any psychological or sociological studies with regard to this problem. What we need in Canada are houses.
I was rather disappointed yesterday when the Prime Minister said there was no intention on the part of the government to set up a separate ministry of housing and urban development, when this was one of the major recommendations of the task force on housing. If we are to solve this housing problem, we must have leadership by the federal government to co-ordinate the housing plans. I ask the government to take the initiative in setting up this type of ministry and have the minister set forth the proper type of plans to meet the most critical problem in Canada today, the housing shortage.


Mr. Rene  Malle@Champlain: Mr. Speaker, the opening of the market that has taken place in the field of housing seems at first sight to be an advisable thing. But if we do not give people a purchasing power which could provide them with more independence, we will have to approve those different projects. However, let me quote an excerpt from page 2 of the announcement, which reads as follows:
The rents for the public housing units will be based on family income. The units for ownership will be sold at prices that will enable families to move into two-bedroom accommodation with incomes of $4,900 and into three-bedroom accommodation with incomes of $5,600.
I think that one most important factor has been overlooked. What is going to be done for a family of 6, 7 or 8 children with a $4,900 income? The size of the family should be taken into account. You cannot put a family of ten in a two bedroom house, and this is very important because very often, the largest families have the lowest incomes. I feel therefore that large families have not been duly considered.
On the other hand, it seems that in introducing this legislation some concern has been given to the social aspect and to the dignity

April 16, 1969
Questions
of the family, because it is stated, and I quote:
We know from the work of the task force on housing and urban development that very definite sociological and psychological disadvantages result from stacking people in massive public housing projects.
If, in drawing up this legislation, care has been taken to avoid certain inconveniences likely to affect the dignity of the family, we are only too glad about it.
Mr. Speaker, there is one thing which has not been duly considered, and that is to look more after large families, even though their income is too low to entitle them to a two or three bedroom house.



QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. McKinley: What were the total direct and related costs of the Task Force on Housing and Urban Development from its inception up to and including the report?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: As of March 31, 1969, expense payments relating to the Task Force on Housing and Urban Development have totalled $158,217.70. Final cost figures are not yet known.


PORT-AUX-BASQUES, NFLD., TRANSFER SHED
Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg: North Centre):
1.	Was the transfer shed at Port-aux-Basques, Newfoundland, built in 1967, designed for car-body transfer (i.e., lifting a mainland box-car, from standard gauge tracks to Newfoundland narrow-gauge tracks) ?
2.	Was the car-body transfer at the transfer shed at Port-aux-Basques approved by any department of the federal government?
3.	What is the number of car bodies transferred at the transfer shed at Port-aux-Basques in each month since January, 1968?
4.	How much of this car-body transfer has been "new" traffic?
5.	What are the names of the shippers or consignees who have requested that their traffic be moved by car-body traffic at Port-aux-Basques?
6.	For 1968, how much traffic from the mainland for Newfoundland, handled by the Canadian National Railways, was routed to St. John's?
7.	For 1968, how much traffic from the mainland for Newfoundland, handled by the Canadian National Railways, was routed direct from a mainland

port to a port on the South-West coast of Newfoundland?
8.	When will the new car-body transfer in the old terminal at Port-aux-Basques be ready?
9.	What is the cost per ton for freight from the mainland handled at Port-aux-Basques by conventional methods?
10.	What is the cost per ton for freight from the mainland at Port-aux-Basques handled by car-body transfer?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows: 1. Yes. To enable the carrying out of limited car-body transfers.
2.	Although specific approval to implement an operating procedure is not required, construction of the transfer shed which contemplated such an operation was approved by the Department of Transport. In addition, discussions were had with the Department of Labour.
3.
Month	Total Eastbound and Westbound Cars
January-March	Nil
April-May	A few (no record kept)
June	46
July-August	A few (no record kept)
September	98
October	78
November	150
December	224
January	225
Records are not	maintained that would
enable the Company to answer the question in the form asked.
5.	It has not been the practice nor is it considered in the best interests of the Company to disclose information of a nature which would be of value to its competitors.
6.	As a result of congestion caused by the reconstruction of facilities at Port-aux-Basques, ice and adverse weather conditions, a temporary surge in special traffic and also fill-out traffic for conventional vessels diverted to comply with certain safety precautions in the handling of explosives and for vessels en route to St. John's for annual refit or inspection, about 41,000 tons of traffic was routed to St. John's.
7.	About 19,200 tons.
8.	Completion of the work is presently scheduled for the fall of 1969.
9.	and 10. The rate or cost to the shipper for handling traffic by car-body transfer is
April 16, 1969

the same as that for the handling by conventional methods.


OTTAWA-LODGING PROVIDED BY GOVERNMENT
Mr. Schreyer: 1.	Does any department of the federal government rent apartment suites or single dwellings in the City of Ottawa for purposes of providing lodging to its own personnel or foreign visitors?
2.	Does any department of the federal government rent such accommodation in the Juliana Apartments, 100 Bronson Avenue, Ottawa?
3.	If so, what is the per unit rental in each of the above cases?
Address
2060 St. Laurent Blvd.
171 Rodney Crescent 681 Weston Drive 2826 Sandalwood Drive 2207 Plesser Street 167 Mafeking Avenue 1841 Hutton Avenue 1618 Pullen Avenue 647 Browning Avenue 656 Portage Avenue 753 Thirsk Street 1821 Cloverlawn Crescent 819 Wingate Drive 2299 Urbandale Drive 1603 Pullen Avenue 2381 Howland Avenue 89 Meadowlands Drive 2178 Westbourne Avenue 30 Rebecca Avenue 2838 Sandalwood Drive 2066 St. Laurent Blvd.
527 Shelly Drive 557 Blair Street 997 Harkness Avenue 766 Fairdale Avenue 25 Rebecca Crescent 24 Arundel Avenue 124 Springfield Rd. Ste. 4 2159 Bingham Street


BOROUGH OF YORK CITIZENSHIP OFFICE
Mr. Aiken: 1.	Has the Department of the Secretary of State received from the Corporation of the Borough of York a request that a Citizenship Office be established in the Borough of York, to be staffed on either a full-time or part-time basis?
2.	If so, when will the office be opened, and will it operate on a full-time or a part-time basis?
Questions


Mr. Yves Forest (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: 1. Yes, the Department of the Solicitor General.
2.	No.
3.	The leases listed hereunder are maintained only to ensure that quarters are readily available for officers arriving in Ottawa on transfer, and the rental is recovered monthly by pay deduction from the officer occupying the leased accommodation. There is, therefore, no revenue loss to the R.C.M. Police. This service has been authorized by Order in Council P.C. 1954/1971 dated December 16, 1954 and T.B. Minute T.B. 630, 444 dated September 3, 1964.
Type of Accommodation	Monthly Rent
2 double	$115.00
Single dwelling	125.00
Single dwelling	115.00
Townhouse	135.00
2 double	115.00
Single dwelling	135.00
k double	115.00
Single dwelling	145.00
Single dwelling	135.00
Single dwelling	115.00
a double	135.00
i double	115.00
Single dwelling	145.00
Single dwelling	115.00
Single dwelling	135.00
Single dwelling	115.00
Single dwelling	115.00
Single dwelling	135.00
Single dwelling	135.00
Townhouse	135.00
i double	145.00
i double	135.00
Single dwelling	145.00
Single dwelling	115.00
Single dwelling	145.00
Single dwelling	115.00
Single dwelling	125.00
Apartment	145.00
Single dwelling	115.00
3. If the request has been refused, what are the reasons for refusal?


Hon. Gerard Pelleiier (Secretary of State):: 1.	Yes.
2.	New accommodation is being sought for the Court of Canadian Citizenship in Toronto and its location will be decided in consultation with the Department of Public Works

April 16, 1969
Questions
after consideration of such factors as cost, availability, suitability, accessibility, proximity to transportation facilities and location of immigrant population. It is not yet possible to say whether it will be located in the Borough of York. It is the intention to open additional citizenship offices in Toronto as soon as budgetary restrictions permit but this will not take place during the current fiscal year.
3.	Not applicable.


COST OF MINISTERIAL PORTRAITS
Mr. Downey: What is the total amount of money which has been spent in each case for the production of ministerial portraits for each of the following (a) the Prime Minister (b) the Leader of the Government in the Senate (c) the Minister of Transport
(d)	the Secretary of State for External Affairs
(e)	the Solicitor General of Canada (f) the Minister of Public Works (g) the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (h) the President of the Treasury Board (i) the Minister of Finance and Receiver General (j) the Minister of National Defence (k) the Minister of Industry and the Minister of Trade and Commerce (1) the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development (m) the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (n) the Minister of National Revenue (o) the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada (p) the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (q) the Minister of Labour (r) the President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada (s) the Minister of National Health and Welfare (t) the Secretary of State of Canada (u) the Minister of Fisheries (v) the Minister of Agriculture (w) the Minister of Veterans Affairs (x) the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (y) the Minister of Defence Production (z) the Postmaster General (aa) the Minister without Portfolio (Port Arthur) (bb) the Minister without Portfolio (Winnipeg South) (cc) the Minister without Portfolio (Saska-toon-Humboldt) ?


Yves Forest: (a) $2,023.13; (b) Nil; (c) $150; (d) Ministerial portraits for use at Canadian Missions abroad on behalf of the Prime Minister, $560'; on behalf of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, $1,557.50; (e) Nil; (f) $76; (g) $640; (h) Nil; (i) $767.50; (j) Nil; (k) $67.50; (1) Nil; (m) Nil; (n) Nil; (o) $50; (p) $109.98; (q) $228.12; (r) $81.17; (s) $241.90; (t) $29.60; (u) Nil; (v) $513.50; (w) $465.35; (x) $75.75; (y) $436.75; (z) $91.50; (aa) $205.85; (bb) $82.98; (cc) $374.25.


ATTENDANCE AT FORT SMITH SCHOOL
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	How many children of school age from the Indian Village at Yellowknife, N.W.T. are attending school at Fort Smith?

2.	What is the cost per year of providing board and room at Fort Smith for these children from the Indian Village at Yellowknife?
3.	How many children of school age at the Indian Village at Yellowknife, N.W.T. are attending the volunteer school being conducted at the home of the Chief of the Village?
4.	Are arrangements being completed for all the children of school age from the Indian Village at Yellowknife to attend school either at a school at the village or in integrated classes in the Yellowknife School and, if not, for what reason?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1. Forty two.
2.	The approximate cost is $925 per pupil per annum.
3.	Six or seven children attended the volunteer class conducted by a Company of Young Canadians' worker at the Indian Village, Yellowknife. This class was not conducted on a regular basis and it has apparently been suspended.
4.	This matter is being discussed by local federal and territorial authorities at Yellowknife.


SCHOOL GRADES OF ESKIMO CHILDREN
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	In each year since 1958, how many Eskimo children began school in Grade One?
2.	How many of the Eskimo children in each school since 1958 finished Grades 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11?
3.	If the percentage of Eskimo school children reaching high school is substantially lower than the percentage of other Canadian school children as a whole reaching high school, has the government conducted any studies to ascertain the basic reasons for this great difference?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 1. The
following is the total number of Eskimo pupils entering school at the Grade I or beginners level in the N.W.T. and Arctic Quebec.
Year	Pupils
1958-59	Not available
1959-60	393
1960-61	385
1961-62	386
1962-63	450
1963-64	314
1964-65	662
1965-66	954
1966-67	837
1967-68	911
April 16, 1969

2.	Statistical data is not available showing the number of Eskimo pupils completing Grades V to XI during the period 1958-63. The following is a summary of the numbers of Eskimo pupils successfully completing the grades in question during the period 1964-68 in N.W.T. and Arctic Quebec.
Grade Successfully Completed
Year	V	VI	VIIVIII	IX	X XI	1964-65	118	121	37	29	13	4	31965-66	134	73	31	27	19	13	71966-67	194	117	45	22	22	17	81967-68	250	139	59	22	12	15	123. The	percentage	of	Eskimo	children	
reaching the secondary grades has been lower than the percentage of other Canadian school children reaching a similar level. In addition to studies conducted by departmental staff, studies by outside consultants have been made to help determine causes and suggest remedies.


MATHEMATICS TAUGHT IN YUKON AND N.W.T. SCHOOLS
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	What type of mathematics is taught in the schools in the Yukon and the Northwest Territories?
2.	If "new mathematics" is being used, what steps are taken to ensure that those teaching mathematics have been trained to teach the new mathematics?
3.	Are students switched from being taught new mathematics to old mathematics from grade to grade depending on the training of teachers and, if so, has any assessment been made of the effect of such changes on the learning ability of the students and by whom has this assessment been made?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 1. The
Yukon Territorial Government uses the British Columbia School curriculum which includes teaching the "new mathematics". Mathematics courses in Northwest Territories schools are the same as those used in certain provinces, namely:	Mackenzie District:
(Alberta); Arctic District: Keewatin Region, (Manitoba); Frobisher Region, (Ontario); Arctic Quebec, (Quebec Protestant). In all cases provisions are made for some work in "new mathematics".
2.	Accompanying the introduction of "new mathematics" in the Yukon were special training and in-service workshops for all teachers. These workshops were maintained from four to five years, depending upon their need. As
Questions
summer school and university training programs reduced the need for in-service training, the program was phased out.
Between 1963 and 1966, a Mathematics specialist on the curriculum staff of the Education Division did extensive work to help Northwest Territories teachers, school administrators, and parents prepare for changes in mathematics curriculum. This took the form of teacher workshops, meetings and class visits; parent meetings; preparation of in-service bulletins and the development of special northern-oriented mathematics readiness materials for beginners.
Since that time, regional superintendents and their teacher consultants together with school principals have been expected to provide necessary on the job supervision. Occasionally resource experts are employed for conferences. At all times professional books and films are available on loan.


INTEGRATION IN YUKON AND N.W.T. SCHOOLS
Mr. Orlikow: 1 Are classrooms in schools in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon integrated for Indian, Eskimo and white children?
2.	If so, when was the policy of integration adopted?
3.	Has the policy of integration been suspended since its inception and, if so, when, for how long and for what reasons?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 1. Yes.
2.	School classrooms in the Northwest Territories have been operated on an integrated basis since 1955.
In June 1969, the Choutla Indian School in the Yukon will close, and at that time all Yukon schools will be operated by the Yukon Territorial Government on an integrated basis.
3.	No.


INSPECTION OF YUKON AND N.W.T. SCHOOLS
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	In each school year since 1963, how many inspection trips has the District Superintendent of Schools in the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development made of schools in the Yukon and Northwest Territories?
2.	What schools did he inspect?
3.	How long did the inspection of each school take?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 1. Supervision of the only Indian school in the Yukon

April 16, 1969
Questions
Territory, the Carcross Indian School, is performed by officials of the Territorial Government.
The District Superintendents of Schools for the Northwest Territories do not inspect schools, as this function is the responsibility of the Regional Superintendents of Schools.
2.	The District Superintendents of Schools do, however, visit schools for the purpose of staff consultations and have visited all schools in their Districts for this purpose.
3.	Schools were visited for periods of from one to three days each, depending upon the size of the school and availability of transportation.


EDUCATIONAL SERVICES IN N.W.T. AND ARCTIC QUEBEC
Mr. Lewis: 1.	What is the present establishment of the education branch of the federal and/or territorial governments for educational services offered in the Northwest Territories and Arctic Quebec?
2.	How many full-time accredited teachers on permanent establishment are fluent in the natal tongue of their pupils indigenous to the area in which they are teaching?
3.	What are the names and addresses of the teachers referred to in Part (2) above?
4.	Has the Government of Canada ever offered any financial incentives or other rewards to encourage teachers working in the North to acquire a fluency in the natal language of the pupils indigenous to the area in which they are teaching and, if so, describe (a) the nature of the incentives (b) the year each incentive program was introduced, and (c) the number of teachers who benefited?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 1. The
present establishment of the Education Branch of the government for educational services in the Northwest Territories and Arctic Quebec consists of 687 positions.
2.	Six full-time accredited teachers on the permanent establishment are fluent in the natal tongue of the pupils indigenous to the area in which they are teaching, if only Indian or Eskimo children are considered indigenous pupils.
3.	The names and addresses of the teachers referred to in (2) above are: J. A. MacDiarmid, Esq., Frobisher Bay, N.W.T.; R. W. Cousins, Esq., Frobisher Bay, N.W.T.; L. A. Smith, Esq., Pond Inlet, N.W.T.; H. L. Brintnell, Esq., Pond Inlet, N.W.T.; G. Z. Diveky, Esq., Port Harrison, Quebec; W. L. Born, Esq., Holman Island, N.W.T.

4.	No. The Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has developed an Eskimo Language Course, consisting of 150 lessons which have been taped and are available free of charge to any departmental employee requesting them. Since 1968, approximately 50 departmental employees, including 32 teachers have been provided with these tapes. The department also plans to establish an Eskimo Language Training School at Rankin Inlet for Departmental employees including teachers, and it is expected that classes will commence in October, 1969.


CURRICULUM SECTION OF NORTHERN EDUCATION BRANCH
Mr. Lewis: 1.	In what year was the Curriculum Section of the Northern Education Branch of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development founded?
2.	What has been the cost of the operation since that date?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 1. The
curriculum section of the Northern Administration Branch was organized in 1956.
2.	Until 1966-67, total operating costs of the curriculum section were not maintained separately from the costs of operating other sections of the Education Division. Operating costs of the curriculum section, including salaries, are available for the following fiscal years: 1966-67, $127,035.71; 1967-68, $126,478.14.


FORT CHIPEWYAN, ALTA., HIGH SCHOOL
Mr. Yewchuk: Would the Indian Affairs and Northern Development Department give consideration to construction of a high school at Fort Chipewyan, Alberta, within the next 1 or 2 years?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: The Department no longer operates schools at Fort Chipewyan, Alberta.
The provision of educational services for all school children at Fort Chipewyan has been assumed by the Northland School Division which is the provincial administrative unit responsible for the administration and supervision of schools in northern Alberta.
The Divisional Board determines school accommodation requirements in this area.
April 16, 1969

When Indian children are involved, capital contributions to new schools are made by the Department which also pays for the maintenance of Indian children in these schools.


MONTMAGNY-ESTABLISHMENT OF HEAVY WATER PLANT
Mr, Lambert (Bellechasse): 1.	Has the Minister of Industry considered the possibility of establishing a heavy water plant in Montmagny?
2.	Has the Minister of Industry undertaken research in this connection and, if so (a) what were the results of such research (b) was the area found suitable for such a plant (c) was the water required for such a plant found to be useable for this purpose (d) what is the approximate cost of construction of a heavy water plant?

Hon, Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce): 1. The establishment of a heavy water plant in Montmagny has not been studied.
2. N/A.


YELLOWKNIFE, N.W.T.-PROHIBITORY REGULATIONS FOR AKAITCHO HALL
Mr. Orlikow: Do the regulations applicable to students residing at Akaitcho Hall, Yellowknife (a) prohibit students from visiting homes in Yellowknife without special permission from the Head Supervisor (b) prohibit students from riding in cars or taxis without permission from the Supervisors on penalty of dismissal from Akaitcho Hall (c) prohibit students who own cars from driving them while in Residence and require keys to such cars to be left with the Residence Superintendent (d) make the Old Town out of bounds to Residence students except with special permission from the Head Supervisor and, if so, what are the reasons for this prohibition (e) require students to attend church every Sunday morning and prohibit Sunday leave to students who have not attended church (f) require students invited to the homes of friends in Yellowknife to inform the Supervisor before accepting the invitation (g) require students' guests to Akaitcho Hall to sign the Guest Book and report to the Supervisor on duty?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: (a) No.
Approval of a supervisor is required for overnight leave; (b) No. Permission of a supervisor is required but penalty is not stipulated;
(c)	No; (d) No; (e) No; (f) No. (With .exception as indicated in (a) above; (g) No.
Questions


YELLOWKNIFE, N.W.T.-DATE OF PROMULGATION OF AKAITCHO HALL REGULATIONS
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	When were the regulations governing students living at Akaitcho Hall, Yellowknife promulgated and by whom?
2.	Have the regulations for students at Akaitcho Hall been changed since first promulgated?
3.	Have the regulations at Akaitcho Hall been approved by any officials of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development beside the Resident Superintendent?
4.	Were the regulations brought to the attention of any officials of the Department by the Superintendent of Akaitcho Hall and, if so, did they offer suggestions for changes, amendments, modifications, etc. and, if so, when and what suggestions were made by the Department?
5.	Is each student at Akaitcho Hall required to sign a statement that he or she accepts these regulations?
6 Does the Department approve of these detailed regulations for students residing at Akaitcho Hall?
7. Do any of the other residences operated by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development have similar regulations governing the living conditions of the residents?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 1. The
first regulations were outlined in 1958 by the Residence Superintendent.
2.	These were revised in 1962 and again in 1964 and have been reviewed every year since 1964. The present regulations were promulgated in 1969.
3.	Yes, by the Principal of Sir John Frank-lyn School.
4.	Yes. No suggestions for amendments to the present regulations have been made by field officers of the Department.
5.	No.
6.	Yes.
7.	Yes. The regulations at the other large residences operated by the Department at Fort Churchill, Manitoba and Whitehorse, Y.T. are appropriate to the situations there. '


YELLOWKNIFE, N.W.T.-AKAITCHO HALL STUDENT COUNCIL
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Does Akaitcho Hall, Yellowknife have a Students Council and, if so, how many members are on the Council?
2.	Are members of the Students' Council at Akaitcho Hall elected or appointed and by whom are the members elected or appointed?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 1. Yes. Akaitcho Hall has a Student Council consisting of 12 members.

April 16, 1969
Questions
2. The members are elected by the student body.


YELLOWKNIFE, N.W.T.-USE OF AKAITCHO HALL GYMNASIUM
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Do the regulations applicable to students residing at Akaiteho Hall, Yellowknife, require students using the gym to check with the Supervisor before going into the school?
2.	Do the regulations require students to file their leave cards with their Supervisors before leaving for the gym and to pick them up after leaving the gym, and are they subject to a penalty if they fail to do so?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 1. The
regulations concerning admittance to the school gymnasium are made by the school principal, and apply to town students as well as residence students.
2. No.


YELLOWKNIFE, N.W.T.-NATURE OF PROHIBITIONS AT AKAITCHO HALL
Mr. Orlikow: Do the regulations applicable to students residing at Akaiteho Hall, Yellowknife (a) prohibit swearing and can infraction of this rule lead to dismissal from the residence and have any students been dismissed for this reason (b) prohibit the chewing of gum within the Residence (c) prohibit smoking during the period of their residence for those students who did not smoke before coming to Akaiteho Hall (d) provide that leave privileges for all residents can be cancelled if one student is guilty of unacceptable behavior (e) provide that each and every leave must be authorized by the Supervisors (f) provide that students must sign a leave sheet every time they both go out of and come back into the building (g) grant evening leave only in exceptional circumstances and where they are specifically cleared with the Supervisors?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: (a) No.
Students are encouraged to refrain from use of obscene language; (b) No; (c) No. Smoking is confined to certin specific rooms; (d) No; (e) No; (f) No; (g) No.


SPONSORSHIP OF POLITICAL BROADCASTS
Mr. Skoberg: 1.	Do both federal and provincial partisan political broadcasts require sponsorship announcements at times other than during an election campaign?
2.	If not, has the Act been changed and, if so, when?

3.	Has the Commission authority to enact regulations as to the manner in which controversial programmes shall be broadcast and, if so, has any change been made in these regulations and when was the change made?
4.	When does the Commission consider partisan political broadcasts, other than during an election campaign, to be controversial?
5.	What authority determines specific rulings regarding programmes of a controversial partisan political character?


Gérard Pelletier: I am informed by the Canadian Radio-Television Commission as follows: 1 and 2. Yes. Licensees were required by Section 17(2) of the former Broadcasting Act to identify the sponsor and political party for broadcasts of a partisan political character. Licensees are required by Section 28(2) of the Broadcasting Act to identify the sponsor and political party of broadcasts of programs, advertisements or announcements of a partisan character.
3.	Yes. No changes made as yet.
4.	This is a matter for the exercise of the regulatory and supervisory functions of the Commission as authorized by Section 15,2(d), and 16(l)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act.
5.	See 4.


TOLLS ON DETROIT-WINDSOR TUNNEL
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 1,672
Mr. Danforth:: Were any negotiations held between the Government of Canada and the officials of the Detroit and Windsor Subway Company re the increase in tolls on the tunnel between Detroit and Windsor (a) if so, in what manner were the rates determined that provided for such a drastic increase (b) if not, were any protests made officially by the Canadian Government (i) over the amount of increase (ii) over the sudden imposition without any warning to the trade (c) if the Canadian Government did not have a part in the negotiations or has not launched a protest, will the government now review the new schedule with a view to protesting that such an increase be reduced to a more reasonable level or disallowed entirely?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The Canadian Transport Commission advises as follows:	There were no negotiations
between the Commission and the Company, (a) Not applicable; (b) (i) No protests were received by the Canadian Transport Commission; (ii) No protests were received by the Canadian Transport Commission; (c) It is open to anyone, at any time, to make application to the Commission regarding any tolls of the Company.
April 16, 1969


TRANSFER OF AIRLINE SERVICES FROM MONTREAL TO TORONTO
Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	Have one or more airline companies requested the transfer of their services from Montreal to Toronto?
2.	If so, what are their names?
3.	How many per year, from January 1, 1966 to March 1, 1969?
Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of Transport:
The Canadian Transport Commission advises as follows: 1. No.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	Not applicable.


WYNYARD, SASK., FEDERAL BUILDING
Mr. Burton: Will the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development be making use of space in the new federal building to be constructed in Wynyard and, if so, what are the approximate space requirements of the Department?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: No.


LINGUISTIC QUALIFICATIONS OF ATOMIC ENERGY EMPLOYEES
Mr. Fortin: 1.	Of the employees of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited in the Province of Quebec, how many
(a)	have French as their mother tongue (b) have English as their mother tongue (c) are bilingual (d) have some other language as their mother tongue?
2.	What is the salary of each of these employees?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Acting Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: In so far as
Atomic Energy of Canada Limited is concerned: 1. (a) 5; (b) 4; (c) 8; (d) Nil.
2. It is the policy of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited not to publish individual salaries.


LINGUISTIC QUALIFICATIONS OF RESEARCH COUNCIL EMPLOYEES
Mr. Fortin: 1.	Of those persons employed by the National Research Council earning $17,000 and over, how many are there whose mother tongue is French and, if there are none, what steps does the Council intend to take to remedy this situation?
2.	What is the policy of the National Research Council with regard to (a) bilingualism (b) the recruiting of French-speaking Canadians?
3.	What is the total amount of the National Research Council's capital assets in (a) Ontario
(b)	Quebec?
Questions
4.	How many employees does the Council have in (a) Ontario (b) Quebec?
5.	Does the National Research Council intend to establish research laboratories in Quebec and, if not, for what reason?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Presidenl of ihe Treasury Board):: 1. Eight.
2.	(a) and (b) For many years it has been the policy of the National Research Council to recruit both French-speaking and Englishspeaking persons for its staff. In keeping with present government policy, it is the policy of the Council to intensify its efforts to recruit French-speaking persons and to strengthen further its links with Canada's French-speaking universities.
In all cases where there is a significant requirement for the use of the second language, it is the policy of the Council to assist its employees to develop the necessary language skills. Younger English-speaking scientists and other members of the professional staff are particularly to be encouraged to develop and maintain their French language ability as a means of helping them to improve their communication with Frenchspeaking persons in their fields of interest and of enhancing the attractiveness of the Council's laboratories to French-speaking scientists.
3.	(a) Ontario $90,636,000, of which $84,-
096,000	is in the National Capital Region; (b) Quebec $18,000.
4.	(a) Ontario 3,352 of whom 3,328 are in the National Capital Region; (b) Quebec 7.
5.	No. The Council does not have plans to establish any new research laboratories at the present time.


C.B.C. USE OF CUBAN FILMS
Mr. Paproski: 1.	Has the C.B.C. recently concluded an agreement with the Government of Cuba for the use of that Government's films on the CBC French network?
2.	Has this agreement been approved by Cabinet and, if so, what is its purpose?


Gérard Pelletier: I am informed by the C.B.C. as follows: 1. Mo. However, the C.B.C.'s French network had discussed the exchange of films and television films with Cuban representatives and is currently considering certain films from Cuba in the course of its normal evaluation of foreign films for possible broadcast use.
2. Not applicable.

April 16, 1969
Questions


NORTH BATTLEFORD, SASK.-SCHOOL CURLING C3.C. COVERAGE
Mr. Thomson: 1.	What amount of television time has the CBC given to the Canadian School Curling Championships held recently in North Battleford?
2.	Has a longer period been allowed to other events of a similar nature?


Gérard Pelletier: I am informed by the C.B.C. as follows: 1. Due to the difficulties presented by the tremendous distance separating North Battleford from the nearest production centre, the C.B.C. was not in a position to give national live network coverage of this event. However, station CBWT in Winnipeg did present a 7-minute filmed telecast of the event on February 28.
2. The Canadian Curling Championships held in Oshawa from March 3 to March 7 were covered in nightly 20-minute reports plus a 2-hour wrap-up on Saturday, March 8 on the full network. The World Curling Championships in Perth, Scotland were covered in a live 2-hour feature on Saturday, March 22, on the full network.


EMPLOYMENT OF MR. JEAN-PAUL RACINE
Mr. Lambert (Belle-chasse): Is Mr. Jean-Paul Racine in the employ of the federal government or one of the Crown corporations and, if so (a) what is his position (b) what is his annual salary?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Jean-Paul
Racine was an employee of this department for the period February 27, 1967 to January 31, 1968 at which time he resigned to accept employment with the Quebec provincial government. (a) His position was that of a "Manpower Counsellor", and (b) his salary was $7,402 per annum.


CANADIAN WHEAT TO IVORY COAST
Mr. Godin: Has the Ivory Coast received the Canadian wheat which it ordered at the end of November 1968 and, if so, when was delivery of this wheat effected?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: No, since the request for wheat was subsequently withdrawn by the Ivory Coast.


TRANSFER OF INDIAN AGENCY TO NORTH BATTLEFORD
Mr. Thomson: On what basis or for what reason did the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development transfer the Indian Affairs Agency from Battleford to North Battleford (a) what was the rent previously paid by the Indian Agency for this space required by it in Battleford (b) what is the present rent paid for this Agency in North Battleford?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: The Battleford Indian Agency was transferred from Battleford to North Battleford to improve the overall administration of the Agency and for the convenience of the Indians, (a) The Indian Agency did not pay rent in Battleford as the office occupied space in a Federal building; (b) This Department was informed by the Department of Public Works that $20,736.00 rent is paid for the Agency Office in North Battleford.


IMMIGRATION APPEAL COURTS
Mr. Rondeau: How many Immigration Appeal Courts are there in Canada (a) where do they sit (b) how many cases were heard in each of them in 1968 (c) what are the names and addresses of the members of these courts (d) what is the ethnic origin of each of these members (i) how many are bilingual (ii) how many speak only French (iii) how many speak only English (e) when were they appointed (f) what remuneration do they receive?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 1. There is one Immigration Appeal Court in Canada; (a) The Board may sit at such places in Canada as it sees fit pursuant to sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the Immigration Appeal Board Act; (b) At Ottawa, 1114 cases were heard. At Montreal, 67 cases were heard from October to December, 1968; (c) The names and addresses of the members are as follows: Miss Janet V. Scott, Ottawa; Mr. J. C. A. Campbell, Ottawa; Mr. J. P. Geoffroy, Longueuil, P.Q.; Mr. U. Benedetti, Ottawa; Mr. J. A. Byrne, Ottawa; Mr. F. Glogowski, Ottawa; Mr. J. P. Houle, Ottawa; Mr. G. Legare, Ottawa; Mr. A. B. Weselak, Ottawa.
(d)	The ethnic origin of the members is as follows: Canadian citizens; (i) Four members are bilingual and all other members have a working knowledge of the English and French languages; (ii) None speaks only French; (iii) One speaks only English. Some members
April 16. 1969

Questions
have a fluent or working knowledge of Polish, Italian, Czech, Ukrainian, German or Spanish;
(e)	The dates of appointment for the members of the Board are as follows: Miss Janet V. Scott, Chairman, August 15, 1967; Mr. J. C.
A.	Campbell, Vice-Chairman, October 1, 1967; Mr. J. P. Geoffroy, Vice-Chairman, October 1, 1967; Mr. U. Benedetti, Member, October 1, 1967; Mr. J. A. Byrne, Member, May 22, 1963; Mr. F. Glogowski, Member, October 1, 1967; Mr. J. P. Houle, Member, May 22, 1968; Mr. G. Legare, Member, October 1, 1967; Mr. A.
B.	Weselak, Member, October 1, 1967. (f) The remuneration for the members of the Board is as follows: Chairman, $22,000; Vice-Chairmen, $21,000; Members, $19,000.


PASQUA INDIAN RESERVE LEASES
Mr. Burton: Have any cultivation leases or any other form of agricultural lease been granted on the Pasqua Indian Reserve and, if so (a) to whom have the leases been extended (b) what is the acreage in each lease (c) what is the life of each lease and when does each expire (d) what is the crop sharing arrangement for each lease?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Yes. Agricultural leases as follows:
(a)	(b)	(c)	(d)Owen Campbell	1,200 acres	7 years	- December 31, 1971	1967-	J 1968-	i thereafter iOwen Campbell	640 acres	7 years	- December 31, 1972	1967-	J 1968-	J thereafter iGerhardt & Fred Flaman	1,280 acres	5 years	- December 31, 1971	1967-J thereafter JWilfred A. Fromback	480 acres	7 years	- December 31, 1971	J-lst crop J-2nd crop J thereafterWilfred A. Fromback	320 acres	7 years	- December 31, 1972	i-1967 i-1968 i thereafterKenneth Mader	320 acres	6 years	- December 31, 1970	i-1965, 1966 & 1967 i thereafterGeorge G. Solomon & Donald M. McPherson	900 acres	6 years	- December 31, 1971	i-1966 i thereafterGeorge G. Solomon Donald M. McPherson R. H. Smith	230 acres	7 years	- December 31, 1972	i-1967 i-1968 i thereafterR. J. Sthaman	960 acres	7 years	- December 31, 1972	i-1967
i-1968 J thereafter
Note: The reason for the J and J crop share during the intitial years of each term is to compensate the lessee for breaking and reclaiming the land during the first year.


COMPETITION FOR TREASURY BOARD SPECIALIST
Mr. Francis: 1.	Was a competition held for the position of Treasury Board Specialist, Ottawa, Ontario, Competition 68-0-ID-540 CR5, with a closing date of December 20, 1968?
2.	Did the Public Service Commission hold a board which rated all the candidates?
3.	Were any appeals lodged against the decision of the Public Service Commission?
4.	Did the Department of Finance decide to cancel the competition after the decision of the Public Service Commission and, if so, what were the reasons for cancelling this competition?


Gérard Pelletier: I am informed by the Public Service Commission as follows: 1. Competition 68-0-ID-540, CR 5, Records Management Division,

April 16, 1369
Questions
Treasury Board Secretariat, was held with a closing date of December 20, 1968. The title of the position was Records Retirement Clerk.
2.	Yes.
3.	Yes.
4.	Yes. The competition was cancelled because there was a red-circled employee within the Department who should have been considered and appraised for the position before the Public Service Commission was requested to fill it by means of interdepartmental competition.


ELIGIBLE U.S. ARMY PERSONNEL ADMITTED TO CANADA
Mr. Mazankowski: How many citizens of the United States of America, of an age making them liable for service in the armed forces of their country, were admitted to Canada in 1966, 1967, 1968 and during the first two months of 1969 (a) how many of them have been granted landed immigrant status (b) on what basis are the remainder continuing to reside in this country?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: In answer to part (a) of the question, in 1966, landed immigrant status was granted to 1,460 United States citizens who were within the draftable age range. In 1967, the number was 1,805, and for 1968, the total was 2,797. No figures are yet available for 1969. Citizens and permanent residents of the United States who enter Canada as non-immigrants are not normally documented. Consequently, no data is available to answer part (b) of the question.
It should be noted that for a wide variety of reasons males in the United States within the draftable age range are frequently exempt from compulsory military service. It is possible, therefore, that some of the individuals included in the above figures might have been in a draft exempt category.


QUALIFICATIONS FOR CENTENNIAL MEDALS
Mr. Robinson: How many years service was required as a criteria in the awarding of Centennial Medals to the militia (a) Officers (b) N.C.Os. (c) men?


Mr. D. W. Groos (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence):: See
reply to your question 737, dated 25 November, 1968, page 3125-6.


OMISSIONS IN PRESENTATION OF CENTENNIAL MEDALS
Mr. Robinson: Did some militia units and/or formations not receive Centennial Medals for (a) officers (b) N.C.Os. (c) men and, if so, for what reason?


David Walter Groos: Some militia units and/or formations did not receive Centennial Medals because the allotment of medals made to the districts was limited and those considered most deserving received the medals in accordance with the criteria indicated in the reply to your question 737, dated 25 November, 1968, page 3125-6.


CIGARETTE EXPORTS
Mr. Godin: 1.	How many cartons of Canadian cigarettes were exported to the United States in 1965, 1966 and 1967?
2.	Are these cigarettes exempt from Canadian duties?
3.	If so, what is the selling price of these cigarettes?


Yves Forest: I am
informed by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics and the Department of National Revenue as follows: 1. The Dominion Bureau of Statistics has no record of the number of cartons of Canadian cigarettes exported. Statistics on exports of cigarettes are recorded in thousands.
The following shows the quantity of cigarettes exported to the United States:
Year	Quantity
	(000)
1965	22,035
1966	29,862
1967	53,219
2.	Cigarettes exported are not subject to excise duty and taxes or to other domestic taxes applicable to goods used in Canada.
3.	Information not available.


INQUIRY RE IMPROVEMENTS TO PORT OF CACOUNA
Mr. Godin: 1.	What is the natural depth of water in the port of Cacouna?
2.	Has the federal government undertaken improvements to this port to date?
3.	If so, what is the nature of the work and by what company is it being carried out?
April 16. 1969

4.	What is the amount expended to date?
5.	What will be the total cost of the project once it is finished?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Public Works):: 1. From 5 to 28 feet at low water level.
2.	Yes.
3.	Dredging of the harbour, by Marine Industries Limited of Montreal, to a depth of 40 feet in the harbour and 46 feet in the berthing area.
4.	To date $3,800,000. (approximately).
5.	$4,600,000. (estimated).


DEPARTMENTAL LEGAL ADVISERS BEFORE IMMIGRATION BOARD
Mr. Haidasz: Since the inception of the Immigration Appeal Board (a) have any private lawyers been hired or used at the hearings on behalf of the Department of Manpower and Immigration or the Minister (b) what are the names of these lawyers (c) what fees were paid to these private lawyers in each case?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No; the Minister of Manpower and Immigration is represented by Appeals Officers from his own Department, or lawyers from the Department of Justice.


BROMPTONVILLE, QUE.-POST OFFICE
Mr. Beaudoin: On what date was the Post Office built in Bromptonville, Richmond County, Quebec and what
Feb. Issue	Campus
Feb. 15	Daily Star
Feb. 15	Globe and Mail
Feb. 18	Daily Star
Feb. 19	Globe and Mail
Feb. 20	Daily Star
Feb. 22	Daily Star
Feb. 22	Globe and Mail
Feb. 22	Financial Post
Feb. 24	Daily Star
Feb. 26	Globe and Mail
March Issue	Campus
March 1	Financial Post
March 1	Daily Star
March 8	Daily Star
Questions
was (a) the cost of construction (b) the total cost of the most recent repairs or renovations, and (c) to whom was the contract for electrical work let in these repairs or renovations?


Arthur Laing: Original contract for the construction of the post office at Bromptonville was awarded in January 1959. (a) $16,200; (b) $21,130 for addition and alterations; (c) De-ziel et Dubois Inc., of Sherbrooke, Que.


NEWSPAPER ADVERTISING BY C.B.C.
Mr. MacEwan: 1.	What is the purpose of the widespread CBC-radio advertising campaign recently undertaken in various newspapers across Canada?
2.	What was the total cost of the press campaign and what were the dates during which the advertisements were to appear?
3.	In what newspapers have advertisements been placed on behalf of CBC radio network personalities and programs (a) in February (b) in March, 1969?


Gérard Pelletier: I am informed by the C.B.C. as follows: 1.. The purpose of the campaign is to encourage more people across Canada to listen to C.B.C. radio news, public affairs and current affairs programs.
2.	The cost of the campaign for the months of February and March was $26,591 including $8,475 in contra accounts.
3.	The following is the list of publications and dates on which advertisements have appeared:
Revol.-As It Happens
As It Happens
Sun. Supplement
Gerussi
Gerussi
Concern
Sun. Supplement As It Happens As It Happens World At 6/8 Concern Revolution World At 6/8 As It Happens Gerussi
7586

April 16, 1969
Questions
March	8	Financial Post	ConcernMarch	14	Time	GerussiMarch	19	Daily Star	ConcernMarch	22	Daily Star	World At 6/8March	22	Vancouver Sun	World At 6/8March	22	Calgary Herald	World At 6/8March	22	Regina Leader-Post	World At 6/8March	22	Edmonton Journal	World At 6/8March	22	WPG Free Press	World At 6/8March	22	Halifax Chronicle	World At 6/8March	22	Saskatoon Star-Phoenix	World At 6/8March	22	Ottawa Journal	World At 6/8March	25	Vancouver Sun	ConcernMarch	25	Calgary Herald	ConcernMarch	25	Regina Leader-Post	ConcernMarch	25	Edmonton Journal	ConcernMarch	25	WPG Free Press	ConcernMarch	25	Halifax Chronicle	ConcernMarch	25	Saskatoon Star-Phoenix	ConcernMarch	25	Ottawa Journal	ConcernMarch	27	Vancouver Sun	GerussiMarch	27	Calgary Herald	GerussiMarch	27	Regina Leader-Post	GerussiMarch	27	Edmonton Journal	GerussiMarch	27	WPG Free Press	GerussiMarch	27	Halifax Chronicle	GerussiMarch	27	Saskatoon Star-Phoenix	GerussiMarch	27	Ottawa Journal	GerussiMarch	29	Vancouver Sun	Sun. SupplementMarch	29	Calgary Herald	Sun. SupplementMarch	29	Regina Leader-Post	Sun. SupplementMarch	29	Edmonton Journal	Sun. SupplementMarch	29	WPG Free Press	Sun. SupplementMarch	29	Halifax Chronicle	Sun. SupplementMarch	29	Ottawa Journal	Sun. SupplementMarch	29	Saskatoon Star-Phoenix	Sun. SupplementMarch	31	Vancouver Sun	As It HappensMarch	31	Calgary Herald	As It HappensMarch	31	Regina Leader-Post	As It HappensMarch	31	Edmonton Journal	As It HappensMarch	31	Daily Star	Sun. SupplementMarch	31	WPG Free Press	As It HappensMarch	31	Halifax Chronicle	As It HappensMarch	31	Saskatoon Star-Phoenix	As It HappensMarch	31	Ottawa Journal	As It Happens

April 16, 1969


STAMP VENDING MACHINES
Mr. Macquarrie: How many stamp vending machines were in service on each of the following dates: December 1,
1968,	January 1, 1969, February 1, 1969, March 1, 1969?


Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Minister of Communications):: In so far as the Post Office Department is concerned: December 1, 1968, 2,888; January 1, 1969; 2,878; February 1,
1969,	2,878; March 1, 1969, 2,886.


C.B.C. PAYMENTS TO RADIO NORD, INC.
Mr. Laprise: In the last five years, how much has the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation paid to Radio Nord, Inc., for radio and television broadcasting?


Gérard Pelletier: I am informed by the C.B.C. as follows: Over the last five years, the C.B.C. has turned over to Radio Nord Inc., certain sums of money representing the latter's share of the commercial revenue for the C.B.C. programs it broadcasts, as a result of the terms of its contracts of affiliation with the C.B.C. It is not customary to reveal these amounts as they are of a confidential nature.


SECONDING FROM SOUTH AFRICAN OR RHODESIAN FORCES
Mr. Broadbenf: 1.	Do the Canadian Defence Forces have any personnel seconded to them or associated with them in any way who are members of either the Defence or Armed Forces of the Union of South Africa or Rhodesia?
2.	If so, (a) how many and (b) where are they stationed at present?
3.	Where were they stationed in June 1968, if applicable?


David Walter Groos: 1. No.
2. and 3. Not applicable.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Robinson: 1.	Does the Department of External Affairs provide subsidies and/or support programs for any segment of the economy, groups or individuals, inside Canada and, if so, to what extent, in what amounts, and to whom are the amounts paid?
2.	What amounts have been paid for subsidies and/or support programs during each of the years 1960-68 inclusive?
Return tabled.
Orders for Returns


Mr. Caouelie: In the last four years, did any Crown corporations have their letters patent amended and, if so (a) in what year (b) what was the purpose of each such amendment?
Return tabled.


Mr. McGrath: 1.	What was the total value of sales in Canada during 1968 of (a) black and white, and (b) colour television sets, at both the wholesale and retail level?
2.	How many sets in both (a) and (b) were sold during the year?
3 What proportion of sets in both (a) and (b) above were manufactured by Canadian companies, by Japanese companies, by United States companies, by other foreign companies?
4.	How many Canadian companies manufacturing colour television sets are controlled by parent companies in the United States and, are there any such companies, or Canadian-owned companies, engaged merely in finishing half-built sets imported from the United States?
5.	Were any unsold 1968 colour television sets shipped by their Canadian manufacturers to the United States and, if so (a) under what arrangements (b) at what unit price (c) was such action taken upon mutual agreement among Canadian manufacturers and, if so, who determined the unit sale price?
6.	Did Canadian manufacturers report a loss in the difference between the cost of manufacturing each coloured television set and the price received upon shipment of each 1968 model to the United States and, if so, has the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs investigated whether any such losses are reflected in the prices of 1969 coloured TV models now on sale in Canada?
7.	Have either or both the Consumer and Corporate Affairs Branch or the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs reviewed recent developments in the television manufacturing industry and, if so, has either Branch taken any action in regard to safeguarding Canadian purchasers of coloured television sets in 1969?
Return tabled.


Mr. Fortin: 1.	Did the City of Montreal make any proposals concerning "Man and His World" and, if so, what was the federal government's response?
2.	Has the government estimated the number of persons who will be unemployed following the closing of "Man and His World" and, if so, what is such estimate and, if not, will such an estimate be made?

April 16, 1969
Motions for Papers
3 Has the government evaluated the beneficial effects of "Man and His World" on the balance of payments and, if so, what was the result of such evaluation and, if not, will such an evaluation be made?
4.	How much has the local problem of coalmining in Nova Scotia cost the government since the creation of the Cape Breton Development Corporation?
5.	How much does the government spend for maintaining the various Canadian monuments in Canada and abroad?
6. How much will the Canadian participation in the Osaka Exposition cost?
7.	Has the government studied the possibility of creating a tripartite corporation to administer "Man and His World" and, if so, what are the conclusions of this study and, if not, for what reason?
8.	For the past ten years, how much money has the federal government spent for federal parks and of this amount, how much was spent in the Province of Quebec?
Return tabled.


Mr. Paproski: 1.	How many persons are currently being held in the Don Jail in Toronto on federal government deportation charges?
2. How many persons are being held in jail across Canada on federal government deportation charges?
3.	How many persons facing federal deportation charges are out on bail?
4. How many persons on deportation charges and currently in detention without bail have been in jail for (a) more than one month (b) more than two months (c) more than three months?
Return tabled.


Mr. Paproski: 1.	How many low-rent housing units were built under NHA financing in each of the following years: 1965, 1966, 1967 and 1968?
2.	For the periods indicated above, in what cities were such units built and how many in each city?
3.	Have any low rent housing units been built directly by Central Mortgage and Housing or have they in each case been partly financed by provincial and municipal governments and what is the general proportion of such financing?
Return tabled.


Mr. Caoueiie: For each of the past six years, by province, and for Canada as a whole (a) what is the amount of 
federal income tax collected from individuals (b) what is the amount of federal income tax collected from corporations, as estimated on the basis of taxable income?
Return tabled.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: I rise to point out the delay in answering question 1,748, placed on the order paper on March 13, and having to do with Mr. Roger Duhamel. The answers may reveal that the government answers given to me earlier were not in accordance with the facts. But that is no excuse for delaying the answering of a question. It is obvious, whoever the responsible minister is, that apparently he is affronting parliament by failing to give an answer.


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, notices of motion Nos. 99 and 100 are acceptable to the government.


CONTRACTS FOR PURCHASE OF ROD SERVICE VEHICLES
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 99-Mr. Macquarrie:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of the contracts between Rod Service Ltd. and the Government of Canada relative to the purchase in March 1969 of vehicles owned by Rod Service Ltd., and for copies of contracts between Transfer Lapalme and the Government of Canada for the sale of these vehicles to Transfer Lapalme.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 100-Mr. Macquarrie:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of Official Purchase Orders of the Post Office Department sent to Rod Service Ltd. at the time of purchase by the Government of Canada of vehicles from Rod Service.
Motion agreed to.
Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, would Your
Honour call notices of motion Nos. 84, 86, 88 and 101?
Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining notices of motion be allowed to stand.
April 16, 1969


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, if these four are all being called so they can be objected to, perhaps they can be allowed to stand.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: They are being called for that purpose, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps they can be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining notices of motion stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Transport whether the government has definitely decided to bring forward legislation on housing before the anticipated summer recess?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: That is still the plan, Mr. Speaker.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I don't think the minister answered my question. Has the government definitely decided to bring forward such legislation?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: It was decided weeks ago, Mr. Speaker.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: In drawing up the proposed legislative program of the government between now and the end of the session, what priority is being given to housing legislation on the basis of the minister's task force report?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: High priority.


Gerald William Baldwin: As a
supplementary question, in view of the high priority which not only the minister but we on this side of the house and the country give to it, I would like to ask the Prime Minister if he would discuss with the government house leader the possibility, in fact the certainty of bringing in this legislation within 30 days?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Righi Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: I shall gladly discuss that with him, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister who stated that this matter of legislation was urgent, when he introduced the report of the task force in January, still feels that it has the same measure of urgency as he spoke of then?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Yes, Mr. Speaker, it is even more urgent now than it was then.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. Is it still the attitude of the government, as stated by him in this house on February 14 as recorded at page 5525 of Hansard, that until the constitution is amended governments are to a large degree powerless to solve housing and urban problems either alone or in co-operation with other levels of government?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would think the hon. member is asking the Prime Minister to make a statement of policy, which I suggest cannot be done at this time.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: As a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the fact that the Minister of Finance has rejected the recommendation concerning the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials, and since the Prime Minister has rejected the recommendation that a federal department of housing and urban affairs should be established, there has been any change in the minister's support for these two major recommendations?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: No; my support to the extent that it has been given, Mr. Speaker, remains unchanged. Actually, Mr. Speaker, I was very careful to point out that any reduction in taxation could only be made when there are surpluses of revenues, but at the rate my hon. friend and his colleagues are bringing forward ideas for new expenditures I am not at all sure that this will ever take place.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. In view of the statement attributed to him in the

April 16, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry press, and confirmed by the statements of General Dare at the External Affairs and National Defence Committee on February 4, that Canada has committed itself to an air transportable brigade group for employment in northern Europe and a battalion group in southern Europe, may I ask the minister when these commitments were made and whether or not they represent any increase in our commitments with respect to reserve air transportable units?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I will have to conclude that I am gravely misunderstood, and I will have to refer to Hansard of December 18, 1967, page 5519, at which time I said this:
We also confirmed-
I was reporting on the NATO meeting in December.
-the continued availability from Canada for 1968 of (a) our already earmarked naval forces; (b) two brigades retained in Canada and already earmarked for Europe.
And I also stated this:
In respect of our plans after 1968-
That is for 1969, this year.
-we proposed, as forecast in the white paper of 1964, to substitute one air transportable brigade group based in Canada for the two brigades now earmarked in Canada.
This was very clearly an indication that what we called at the time the balance of the division was being reduced from two brigade groups to one brigade group, and this is exactly what I stated yesterday, that we have that commitment to a European NATO mobile force.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister a supplementary question. In view of the Prime Minister's statement that the government was embarking upon a phased reduction of our NATO forces, and in view of the fact that we have a reserve commitment of one air transportable brigade unit and one battalion, does this mean that the government already in its own mind has committed itself to the withdrawal of the brigade now already in Europe?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: I do not necessarily see any such implication, Mr. Speaker.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Subject to the misunderstanding of the minister, Mr. Speaker, I would like to

ask him whether he and the Secretary of State for External Affairs stated at Washington that the proposal of the Government of Canada with regard to NATO forces would be decided before the May meeting of the Defence Council of NATO?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I did not make any statement. I had conversations with our colleagues within the alliance. I think what was indicated, and to my understanding what has been indicated even here in Canada, was that negotiations with our allies would begin in May. There are different stages that we have to go through before we confirm these plans at the December meeting, but this process was going to start, and I think we did indicate that it would start at the May meeting.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. Is he aware that the Secretary of State for External Affairs said definitely in Washington that these decisions would be taken before the May meeting of the Defence Council of NATO?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Then just one further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the Prime Minister secure and make available a transcription of the press briefing made in Washington by the Secretary of State for External Affairs?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will ask him to get a copy of the statement for me, Mr. Speaker.



A B.M. SYSTEM-USE OF CANADIAN BASES BY U.S.

Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of National Defence.
Is he in a position today to reply to the question I asked him on March 26 last, that is whether Canada is committed or has agreed to allow the American government to use the Canadian bases located in the Canadian Far North in order to establish an emergency airborne system and whether the government has pledged itself to supply those bases or to allow the United States to use such bases on our territory?
April 16, 1969


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, I am informed by the responsible officials in the department that no specific agreement has been entered into to supply bases for that particular system.
I must, however, point out that this system is assigned to the air defence forces of North America. Under the NORAD Agreement the American forces will then be able to use with the consent of the Canadian Armed Forces our Canadian bases for supplies and training, according to needs.
On the other hand, permanent use would require negotiations between the two governments. I can assure the hon. member that there were no negotiations conducted at any level whatever to use for such a purpose our bases located in the Far North.



FUTURE USE OF U.S. BASES IN NEWFOUNDLAND

Mr. James A. McGrath (SI. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of National Defence. During the course of these negotiations in Washington was the future of American bases in Newfoundland and Labrador discussed?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: No, sir.



CANADA COUNCIL


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State. Was the Secretary of State advised of the Canada Council grant to Stanley Gray before the grant was announced to the public, and if so at what stage of the proceedings was he so advised?


Mr. Speaker:: I am not sure whether this is the type of question that can be asked at this time. I have the impression that the question should either be placed on the Order Paper or discussed at the time of adjournment.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, with your permission I may rephrase my question to make it a matter of great urgency.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Will the minister determine and report to the house whether officials of the Canada Council dealing with Mr. Gray's application gave any consideration to Mr. Gray's involvement in disruptions at McGill, and will he present to the house a clear statement of the government's position on the question of Canada Council awards to persons known to counsel or encourage violent social disruption and revolution?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I was normally informed by the Canada Council after the decision was taken.
The Council itself took into consideration the problems raised, as indicated by the reply which I have here and which states that the academic panel had passed a resolution recommending that a grant be given to Mr. Gray. But in the meantime, due to the publicity given to the part played by Mr. Gray in the events which took place throughout last winter at McGill University, the chairman and other members of the Council advised the academic panel that the final decision in that matter would be taken by the Council itself, since finally it would have to assume the responsibility.
On March 31, the matter was considered at length by the academic committee which is made up of members of the Council who on account of their experience and special interests are especially concerned with the activity of that Council in university circles. That committee has ratified in its turn the recommendation of the selection committee of university affairs.
As for the policy of the Canada Council, this organization is acting in accordance with the legislation governing it and which does not allow it to base its decisions at the academic level on political considerations.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: In light of the minister's statement I wonder whether he will investigate and report to the house in respect of Mr. Gray's statement that-
-I have reason to believe the decision was postponed until now for political reasons.


Mr. Pellefier:: Mr. Speaker, I do not have to make any kind of investigation on that point, because I know it has not been the case.

April 16. 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to assure the house that it will continue to be the policy of the government not to allow any agency for which it is responsible to base academic awards on political considerations ?


Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding, as reported in the paper that this confirmed anarchist has rejected this grant. Will the Secretary of State give this grant to the Edmonton Folk Arts Council, which applied for a grant in order to visit Tunisia and France? This group consists of 40 young and intelligent exchange students.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, after the dissertation by the Secretary of State in respect of freedom for anarchists I should like to ask him whether he is aware that some little or petty Caesar of the C.B.C. has announced that Jerry Rubin will be accorded one night or one hour, whatever the period is-perhaps one hour of one night-on the C.B.C. on either Thursday or Friday of this week to spread and disseminate his seditious and even treasonable utterances?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware that I made a dissertation on freedom for anarchists, and I do not see why the right hon. gentleman is insinuating that I did.
As for the facts he mentioned, I could make inquiries, but I am not aware of them.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the minister cannot talk contemptuously to parliament in that way, I would suggest.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the right hon. gentleman rise to ask a supplementary question?


John George Diefenbaker: Yes. I had to answer the last part of his gratuitous reference.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The right hon. gentleman knows better than I do that-


John George Diefenbaker: He sure does.


Mr. Speaker:: The right hon. gentleman has confirmed that he knows he cannot answer and that he can only ask questions.


John George Diefenbaker: We never get answers, anyhow. I should like to ask the minister whether he will get in touch with the C.B.C. to find out why, whoever this individual is, he defies the government of Canada, which directed that Rubin should not be heard? Will he at the same time find out why a show as popular as the Messer show is being denied to the people of Canada by these individuals who prefer revolutionaries?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



EXPROPRIATION


Mr. Hyl Chappell (Peel South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Justice to tell us when he will be bringing in new legislation in respect of expropriation, to which he referred last October and again in December?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: hope within the next two or three weeks, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: May I ask a supplementary question?


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member going to ask a question supplementary to the one asked by the hon. member for Peel South?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I recognize the hon. member for Calgary North.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I should like to ask the
Minister of Justice whether this new expropriation law will apply to the airport north of Montreal and all its ramifications?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is asking me for a legal opinion. I will be glad to consult with him, once he has seen the bill.


Gerald William Baldwin: I thought you were going to the Supreme Court of Canada.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I would be the last person to ask the Minister of Justice for a legal opinion.
April 16. 1969



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS JUNE CONFERENCE DATE-TELEVISING OF PROCEEDINGS

Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Prime Minister.
In view of a statement made by officials of the Ontario government to the effect that the next federal-provincial conference on the constitution would take place from June 11 to 13, is the Prime Minister in a position to tell the house whether or not a decision has been reached in this connection, and, if not, when we may expect one?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am glad to confirm this statement. A decision was taken yesterday. As a matter of fact, we had set other dates, but, as they were unacceptable to two provinces, we made a number of telephone calls as late as yesterday. It seems that the 11th, the 12th and the 13th will suit every province, subject to confirmation in writing, but there appears to be good grounds for that premature announcement.


Martial Asselin: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
Could the Prime Minister assure us that the proceedings at that conference will be broadcast on radio and television as has been the case for the other conferences?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: 

COMBINES


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-way):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs whether he is aware of the present pricefixing manoeuvres of the British Columbia Pharmacists Society in charging all welfare patients an extra dollar per prescription for drugs and, if so, what action he contemplates to deal with this matter?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the action and, as a result of the 29180-481J
Inquiries of the Ministry little knowledge I have about it, I do not approve. I should however advise the hon. member that the practice of pharmacy is within provincial jurisdiction under their provincial licencing authority.


Mrs. Maclnnis:: Will the minister refer the matter of such apparent price fixing in respect of professional fees to the combines investigation branch?


Stanley Ronald Basford: It has been for some time, Mr. Speaker.



FISHERIES


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Defence Production in his capacity as the acting minister of fisheries. Has the Minister of Fisheries issued instructions closing any large bays on the east coast to Canadian herring seiners, effective April 15, and, if so, was this action taken as a result of a shortage of herring, or what was the reason for this move since it has a great impact on herring reduction plants and Canadian herring fishermen?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, I would have to take that question as notice; it sounds fairly involved. If the hon. member would care to consult with me later, I would be glad to get the information for him.



REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. In view of the statement made by the provincial treasurer of Prince Edward Island in his budget speech yesterday that "nowhere in the hard line taken by the Minister of Finance, Mr. Benson, was there any recognition of those regional disparities to which the federal government stands pledged to give consideration, and which are clamouring for redress", would the Prime Minister, in view of this belief held by the provincial government of Prince Edward Island, say whether it is his intention to discuss these financial problems with the government of Prince Edward Island in the near future, or have the Minister of Finance do so?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, technically speaking I suppose the quotation is correct, in the sense that it is
April 16, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry perhaps not the Minister of Finance who should concern himself in the first instance with regional disparities, but we have a Minister of Regional Economic Expansion whose proper concern it is and who effectively signed with the province of Prince Edward Island a month or so ago a FRED plan under which the federal government will be contributing $125 million.


Malcolm MacInnis: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In order to keep abreast of the affairs going on. in the government, I ask the Prime Minister, who is the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: There is none, Mr. Speaker.


Malcolm MacInnis: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the Prime Minister take care to be accurate in the future?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Angus MacLean: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. I ask the minister whether he intendsi to hold conversations in the near future with the government of Prince Edward Island relative to financial problems which are outside of the comprehensive development plan.


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, my sole power is that of being able to discuss with the government of Prince Edward Island, within the framework of FRED, under which we have an agreement with that government.



ARNOLD'S COVE, NFLD.-RESETTLEMENT PROGRAM

Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Defence Production in his capacity as Acting Minister of Fisheries. Would the minister inform the house whether the government intends to investigate the government's resettlement program in Arnold's Cove, Newfoundland, in view of the very serious questions raised in the C.T.V. program "W-5" of April 6?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is making a representation to the minister and has to assume that it will be taken into account.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, to the Prime Minister. In view of the statement of the provincial treasurer of Prince Edward Island that it would be wrong for the federal government to force the provinces to go it alone on medicare in five years, will the Prime Minister say whether the views of the government of Prince Edward Island in this respect will be, or are being, considered by the federal government and whether further intergovernmental discussions are in contemplation at an early date?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Not on the medicare act proper, Mr. Speaker.



RUBELLA EPIDEMIC-ACCESSIBILITY TO VACCINE

Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare, one of urgent concern to all Canadian women who may become mothers during the next few years.
In view of the medical expectation of an epidemic of rubella during 1970 and 1971, and in view of the possible resultant causation of fetal abnormalities more widespread than those during the thalidomide tragedy, can the minister inform the house what the prospects are for Canadian women to have access to supplies of the Cendehill anti-rubella vaccine, which newspapers say has recently been licensed in Switzerland?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to look into that matter and report to the hon. member in the house.



AIR CANADA


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport and it relates to the transfer of the Air Canada base at Winnipeg to Northwest Industries Ltd. What steps is the government taking to make sure that the employees affected will not be either unemployed or forced to take work at lower wages than they have had under Air Canada?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, as my hon. friend knows, every

April 16, 1969

effort has been made to work out an arrangement which will be equitable to everyone involved and which will not mean a loss' of employment to the people presently engaged in the industry, and which hopefully, in the longer run at least, will provide additional employment for people in those basic trades which will have to support the growing aircraft industry of the future. If my hon. friend wishes to have details of the negotiations, these I could ask for; I do not have them available at the present time. But every effort has been made to try to do justice to the situation, particularly to the men, and to give them their choice as to whether they wish to remain with Air Canada and exercise their rights under the present agreement, or to go with the new company.


Stanley Howard Knowles: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the assurances the minister gave earlier, that there would be no loss of work or reduction in wages, will he at some early opportunity provide the details to which he has referred?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I will make an effort to do that, Mr. Speaker. It may take a few days. I understand there have been some hitches in the negotiations. But at an early, appropriate occasion I will be glad to do that.


Mr. Ed. Schreyer (Selkirk):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the fact that at the time of the Thompson inquiry into the future of the Air Canada base at Winnipeg officials of Air Canada gave testimony that the Air Canada overhaul base at Dorval was being under-utilized, and in view of the recent order for return in this house showing that over $20 million has now been allocated for the expansion of this so-called under-utilized base, will the minister not agree with the officials of Air Canada-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is presenting an argument. This is debate, not a question.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Honey), in answering a question by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis), undertook to answer today a question about the
Inquiries of the Ministry early retirement of Devco miners. I wonder whether he has that answer available.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for York South asked yesterday whether Devco had passed a by-law providing for pre-retirement leave and whether such by-law had been approved by the Treasury Board.
Of course, Devco has passed a by-law providing for such leave and I believe the Treasury Board wil give its approval tomorrow.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the minister a further question because apparently something is wrong with my hearing equipment and the translation is not coming through too well. Can the minister state definitely if and when Treasury Board will give the approval that is required under section 18 of the early retirement plan?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The minister has just given the reply.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I have a further supplementary question for the minister. In view of the fact that the Treasury Board is to approve this legislation tomorrow, will it be possible for Devco to give the miners the required month's notice, since the retirement plan will not be legal until it is approved by Treasury Board?


Mr. Marchand (Langalier):: Mr. Speaker, since this pre-retirement leave plan has been approved by the cabinet, even if tomorrow the Treasury Board were to decide tomorrow not to approve it, it would still not be too late to cancel the notices sent to the workers.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I wish to rise on a point of order. May I point out that the minister seemed to be enjoying the fact that I could not understand what he was saying, but the fact is that my translation equipment is not working.


An hon. Member:: Try to learn French.


Malcolm MacInnis: I have no intention of doing so. I did not understand the minister because, as I indicated, my translation equipment is not working.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.

April 16, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE



RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN STANLEY GRAY AND FRED ROSE

Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Solicitor General. Can the minister tell the house whether the R.C.M.P. has made any investigation into the rumoured relationship between Mr. Stanley Gray and Mr. Fred Rose, a former member of this house?


Hon. G. J. Mcllraiih (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, it has not been the practice to disclose what investigations the police authorities make in matters of this nature. This has been the practice of all governments in recent times.



TRANSPORT


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmonl):: My question is directed to the Minister of Transport. In view of the forecasted need for at least two additional ferries for the Northumberland Strait crossing over the next five years, and the recent amendments by the minister's colleague to the Canada Shipping Act with regard to air cushioned vehicles, I wonder whether the minister's department is now investigating or researching projects to establish hovercraft service from Prince Edward Island to New Brunswick.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: We have been looking at this question for some time. It was considered as one of the possible alternatives for providing service to the island. If I remember correctly, the latest report that I saw indicates that with the equipment presently available this would not be advisable, from the standpoint of cost and convenience, as compared with other forms of transportation.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I wonder if, in connection with the ferry crossing and the considerable uncertainty which still exist with regard to both the schedule and fare structures, the minister will make an announcement shortly ini the house, or have officials of the C.N.R. make such an announcement, before the commencement of greater activity in that operation.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Assuming the commencement of greater activity can be postponed for just a few days, I can undertake to do that.



HOUSING


Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: My
question is directed to the Minister of Transport in his capacity as minister in charge of housing. Since -the housing task force report recommended loans and grants to municipalities in order that they might increase the amount of service land available, does the government contemplate any extension of the N.H.A. 25 per cent loan forgiveness provisions for municipal capital works projects, which are due to expire in March, 1970?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This does not appear to be a matter of great urgency, if the hon. member is alluding to a situation which will not occur for another year.


Mark Willson Rose: May I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, regarding the urgency of my question. Projects of this type require a great deal of planning long in advance. I wonder therefore if the minister might answer my question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that if he is satisfied the matter is urgent, it can be debated at the time of adjournment.



TRANSPORT AND COMMUNICATIONS


James Aloysius McGrath: My question is directed to the President of the Privy Council. In view of the fact that it is impossible for the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications to give consideration to making its final recommendations to the house in connection with its study of the transportation problems of the Atlantic provinces until the house has disposed of the fifth report, will the minister tell the house, in his capacity as house leader, when he intends to bring forward the motion for concurrence in the fifth report, so that it can be disposed of and so that the transport committee can get down to making its final report on this matter?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: As I recall it, Mr. Speaker, the house spent a full day debating that matter, without making any progress. In the light of the heavy legislative schedule I do not expect to see it back at an early date.
April 16, 1969


James Aloysius McGrath: I have a supplementary
question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the answer of the minister, would he now consider bringing in a measure to disband the Transport Committee, since it cannot conduct its study?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



CANADIAN ACTION IN MARKETING OF ANTIBIOTICS

Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the fact that the United States Food and Drug Administration served notice that it intends to stop the marketing of 78 drug products containing antibiotics on the grounds that they expose the patients to unnecessary risk, I want to ask the minister whether his department is in touch with the United States Food and Drug Administration and if his department intends to take similar action with respect to these drugs?


John Carr Munro: We are checking the matter and considering what type of action we will take. I am not prepared to say at present what it will be, but I will report on the matter after our investigation is completed. I hope to do so as soon as possible.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask whether there is a continuing liaison between the minister's department and the United States Food and Drug Administration, so that we may be fully aware of the results of their research and may benefit from it in dealing with some of the drugs, many of which are manufactured in the United States.


John Carr Munro: There is always a very close liaison between the United States Food and Drug Administration and our Food and Drug Directorate.



NATIONAL SECURITY


[Stage Direction]
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the
Opposition): I would like to ask the Prime Minister a question. For some six months I have been trying to find out -when he proposes to table the report of the commission on
Inquiries of the Ministry security. I have asked the question half a dozen times. Can the Prime Minister give us a definite date on which this report will be tabled?
Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I cannot give a definite date but 1 hope hon. members will be able to study it during the summer recess, if not before.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, let us be serious. Does the Prime Minister not realize that this type of delay is creating a great deal of suspicion about this report in the public's mind?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker.



INDUSTRY


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I have a further question for the minister in respect of the Devco retirement plan. Can the minister tell us whether negotiations are still continuing with the railway unions affected under this plan?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, before answering the question, I rise on a point of privilege. A moment ago the hon. member indicated that I seemed to enjoy the fact that he didn't understand my answer.
You can be sure, Mr. Speaker, that I would still enjoy it more if he sometimes understood what I am saying.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Jean Marchand: Here is the answer: the negotiations started with railways employees and miners are completed and the plan applies to all Devco operations.


Malcolm MacInnis: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The minister said the plan is now official. This is not so because the Treasury Board will not give approval to it until tomorrow. So he is wrong in that regard. Futhermore, the previous misunderstanding arose from the language and not from my lack of understanding of what he was saying. I suggest the minister did not understand the situation because if I had not brought it to his attention he would not have known that the plan will not be official until tomorrow.
Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.
Criminal Code

April 16, 1969



EDUCATION


Edward Richard Schreyer: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Secretary of State with regard to the possibility of setting up a French language normal school in the four western provinces.
Does the federal government have a policy through which the provinces might be helped to achieve that goal?


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest to the hon. member and the minister that it might be interesting to discuss that matter at the time of adjournment.


Edward Richard Schreyer: Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker. [English]



SUPPLYING OF SANDBAGS BY E.M.O.

Mr. Craig Siewari (Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. In light of the statement of the premier of Saskatchewan that he did not know where the community of Lumsden could look for more sandbags after the use of those now being brought in, will the minister confirm that the Emergency Measures Organization has arranged for sufficient sandbags to meet the flood crises in Saskatchewan?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: First of all, I do not think we have experienced any shortage yet. There was some anxiety about it, but we have located stocks of which use can be made if required.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The house proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-150, to amend the Criminal Code, the Parole Act, the Penitentiary Act, the Prisons and Reformatories Act, and to make certain consequential amendments to the Combines Investigation Act, the Customs Tariff and the National Defence Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the discussion which took place among the various leaders of the house I wonder if you would mind advising us what the decision of the Chair might be as far as the amendments are concerned, and in what manner we are to proceed?


Mr. Speaker:: Since there is no agreement amongst hon. members, there is no alternative but to consider the amendments seriatim beginning with No. 1. Perhaps the Chair might indicate that, in my view, it would be reasonable not to have individual votes after the consideration of each amendment. My suggestion to hon. members would be that we might go through one series of amendments- I was thinking we might consider all the amendements up to the amendments dealing with abortion-and that the house might then be disposed to vote on all the amendments which have been accepted by the Chair and discussed by the house In other words, we would consider the several subjects concerned with the amendments extended from No. 1 to No. 11. This is my suggestion, and I hope hon. members will be prepared to accept it.


Mr. Lamberi (Edmonton West):: It appears to me, Mr. Speaker, from reading a number of these amendments, that they are of the same nature. I think-indeed, I know it to be a fact-that Your Honour is empowered by the rules to accept, reject, merge or consolidate any amendments put forward. There may be one or two amendments which Your Honour might consider to be altogether out of order. Perhaps the house could be guided by Your Honour's rulings.


Mr. Speaker:: If it is the wish of the house, I might indicate to hon. members some of the amendments which at first blush appear to be out of order and on which the Chair would be prepared to hear argument. It might complicate discussion if, for example, we were to consider amendments 1 to 4 while some hon. members who might be interested in amendment No. 5, wait for that amendment to be called only to be told by the Chair that it is out of order and cannot be put to the house.
It might, therefore, be more convenient if hon. members were notified in advance whether or not an amendment, say, between Nos. 1 and 11 would actually be put to the house. If this suggestion is satisfactory to hon. members I would be prepared to indicate some of the amendments which in my view cannot be put to the house because they are not acceptable procedurally.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
April 16, 1969


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of the debate we objected to the proposal made by the government party because, in our humble opinion, it implied imposing some sort of closure or gag on the house.
Mr. Speaker, we want it known that we consider Bill C-150 of the greatest importance. That is why we should like, in all honesty, as parliamentarians, to participate actively in the debate, without holding up the work of course, but in an attempt to pass a law that meets as much as possible the wishes of the Canadian people.
Mr. Speaker, we therefore feel that it would be very wise for the house to make a logical and detailed study of this bill. It would also be advisable for the house to deal with each amendment on the order paper, according to the normal procedure at the report stage in committee.
We agree with the proposed vote groupings, but we want the house to know that we intend to study each amendment fully, to make sure that the act will correspond to the wishes of the Canadian people.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: With the greatest respect to other hon. members who have spoken, I would recommend to the house that Your Honour's suggestion seems to constitute the only logical way in1 which we can proceed in the absence of unanimous consent. As; other hon. members have pointed out, there are some amendments which are identical. If we proceed from subject to subject, surely the amendments which are in order could be decided at one time rather than by an individual vote on each of them. I hope the house will accept Your Honour's recommendation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: As I
indicated earlier, we would have liked the house to agree to some orderly plan with regard to these amendments but if there is no consent it would appear that Your Honour has' no option but to call the amendments in their numerical order.
However, I should like to support the two suggestions which Your Honour has made. One is that the voting, if there is to be voting, on any of the first 11 amendments might wait until we have finished dealing with those eleven. The other suggestion I wished to support was that Your Honour should tell us now which of the first 11
Criminal Code
amendments you have questions about procedurally. Obviously, Your Honour does not wish to rule any amendments out of order before debate has taken place, if debate is desired, but I think it would be helpful if we knew at this point which of the first 11 amendments Your Honour has doubts about procedurally.


Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker,
I	should like to indicate a few points likely to show the importance of studying all these amendments sensibly so as to avoid adopting them without due consideration.
All members, I suppose, have received yesterday a circular letter from the Alliance pour la vie.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I should like to remind the hon. member that he cannot discuss the substance of the amendments. The point is simply to advise the Chair on the interpretation of the rules. Besides, I can assure the hon. member that I am ready to make my ruling.
Under the rules the Chair has certain powers which I am ready to exercise. However, I am also ready to accept the suggestion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and to indicate which amendments are acceptable, from a procedural point of view among those listed from 1 to 11.

I would therefore suggest that in my view amendment No. 1 is not acceptable. In fact, it is clearly out of order.

In my opinion, the first amendment proposed by the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise) is out of order. However, if he wants to show me that the amendment should be accepted, from a procedural point of view, I will hear his arguments.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On
the point of order, Mr. Speaker, could you not first give us all the amendments from 1 to
II	about which Your Honour has doubts? After that we might go back to No. 1. I think it would be useful for us to know the whole picture.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.'


Mr. Speaker:: The amendments about which the Chair has doubts are No. 1 and No. 2. Nos. 3 and 4 I would be prepared to suggest to

April 16, 1969
Criminal Code
hon. members should be combined. I have serious doubts about No. 5, though I should like to hear argument from hon. members on the point; No. 6, as Nos. 3 and 4, is barely acceptable; Nos. 7 and 8 are acceptable but would have to be combined; Nos. 9 and 10 are also acceptable but would have to be combined and considered at the same time; and No. 11 is quite in order. This is the suggestion I should like to make to hon. members at this time.
Dealing first with amendment No. 1:

I wish to point out to the hon. members that this amendment is not in order because it does not tend to amend a section of the act, as provided in paragraph (5) of standing order 75. It is rather a reasoned amendment which should normally be moved on second reading of the bill.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I have moved amendment No. 1 with a view to regrouping the different subject-matters of the committee report under the following headings:
(a)	abortion,
(b)	homosexuality and indecent assault,
(c)	lottery and gamingand finally
(d)	the remaining clauses of the bill.
We know that Bill C-150 contains certain clauses that are acceptable to some members. On the other hand, others are unacceptable.
Therefore, I moved this amendment not for my personal satisfaction, but at the request of certain public bodies which have expressed their opinions before the committee, during public demonstrations or by submitting petitions.
Among the public bodies which have requested that Bill C-150 be divided, there is the Association of Catholic Parents of Quebec, the Saint-Jean-Baptiste Society of Montreal-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not believe the representations the hon. member may have received from public bodies can be taken into account when we have to decide whether an amendment is in order or not under the standing orders of the house. I wish to point out to the hon. member the reasons why an amendment such as this one is, in my opinion, out of order and if he thinks I am mistaken on the strict point of view of the procedure, I should like him to tell me in what way I am wrong.

I recognize the goodwill of the hon. member and the fact that he moved the amendment with good intent. But on the other hand, I point out to him again that this is not the type of amendment that can be moved at this stage of a bill.
The hon. member believes the bill could have been divided. He will recognize that proposal was made before. If it were possible to comply with such a request, it could certainly not be done at this stage of the consideration of the bill.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I should like to conclude by saying that my ultimate objective in moving that amendment was to enable every member to vote as freely as possible on every one of the main subjects of Bill C-150.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, several members of the Ralliement credi-tiste met this morning in order to determine the position to be taken with regard to item 1.
The argument put forward now was discussed this morning and we almost asked you respectfully to delete this item.
However, several of my colleagues pointed out that we were faced with a great number of amendments and that consequently the study might be quite long if we did not take some kind of step to save time, while allowing for a serious and thorough consideration of this bill.
Therefore, we have decided to retain the first proposed amendment in order to combine the subjects, which would make it possible to undertake a quick, orderly and logical study rather than a rambling one.
I recognize, Mr. Speaker, that my arguments are not of a legal or parliamentary nature. It is mere common sense which led us to believe that if we could combine these amendments or the clauses of the bill, in order to study them in a logical, clear and serious fashion, then I think that your job and ours would be made much easier.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, as I understand it we are now speaking to the point of order that has been raised.


Mr. Speaker:: I am wondering whether it is necessary for the Minister of Justice to enter the fray at this point. I think the point is quite clear. The hon. members themselves recognize and do not seriously propose that the amendment is acceptable from a strictly procedural standpoint. In view of this, I would be prepared to rule on it now or in a
April 16. 1969

few minutes' time. If the minister has arguments to convince me even further, then I will hear him.


John Napier Turner: I was just wondering whether Your Honour had accepted the suggestion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) that you hear argument on all clauses together, or whether we would proceed one by one.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have accepted the suggestion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, (Mr. Knowles) but his suggestion was that we consider each one individually. This is what we are doing at the present time. I have heard argument on amendment No. 1, and I should like to make a ruling now. I am sure that this was the suggestion that was made both by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.

I therefore come to the conclusion that amendment No. 1 is a reasoned amendment, since it provides that the bill will not be read now.
According to our long standing practice, such an amendment can only be moved on second reading of a bill. The amendments which can be moved at the report stage of a bill are governed by the provisions of paragraph (5) of standing order 75 which reads as follows:
If, not later than twenty-four hours prior to the consideration of a report stage, written notice is given of any motion to amend, delete, insert or restore any clause in a bill, it shall be printed on a notice paper.
For those reasons, the Chair must regretfully refuse to put to the house the amendment proposed by the hon. member.
The comments which I have just made to the house, I quite humbly point out, also apply to amendment No. 2. However once again, I would be pleased to hear some arguments strictly relating to procedure on the acceptability of the amendment concerned.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, with regard to amendment No. 2, I shall try to proceed as you have suggested.
I have proposed this amendment in order to get the expression "act of gross indecency", as found in section 149 of the Criminal Code, clarified as much as possible.
Criminal Code
Mr. Speaker, an amendment to the Criminal Code is introduced regarding acts of gross indecency, but neither the old section of the Code nor the new legislation give a clear definition of "gross indecency".
I think this is a vast subject. It could mean acts committed by two persons of the same sex in the presence of others, or by persons of different sexes who would expose themselves in public, on the street or anywhere.
Many other things could be considered as acts of gross indecency, which can take place between husband and wife. Indeed, some acts, although legal, become acts of gross indecency when committed in public.
Through this amendment to clause 7 of Bill C-150, I wanted to get the meaning of the expression "gross indecency" clarified and that is why I ask: That clause 7 be not read until the words "act of gross indecency", as found in section 149 of the Criminal Code be defined by the committee.


René Matte: Mr. Speaker, further to what has just been said by the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise), I should like to point out that when we want to discuss most objectively and advisedly the clauses of a bill, it is extremely important to know the value and the meaning of the expressions or v/ords used.
This is precisely the purpose of that second amendment moved by the hon. member for Abitibi.
When there are complications with regard to procedure, they are due most often to the fact that the principle of the bill is more or less meaningful., Many difficulties could be eliminated if it were decided to delay consideration of these clauses in order to better study the bill. I should like to point out that not only do we not want to postpone consideration of the bill but that on the contrary we intend to expedite it. If clauses 14, 15 and 18 were immediately eliminated, we would be ready to vote today on the motion for third reading of Bill C-150.


Mr. Speaker:: Once more, I must tell the hon. member for Champlain andl his colleagues who took part in the debate that 1 am quite sympathetic to the arguments they have submitted to the chair. Nonetheless, the hon. members will recognize that I must abide by the rules and cannot, through sympathy or understanding, condone any violation. As regards amendment No. 2, the proposal clearly appears to be out of order, as was the case with amendment No. 1.

April 16. 1969
Criminal Code
Amendment No. 2 is faulty in a similar way in that it constitutes a reasoned amendment or subjects to some condition discussion of clause 7 of Bill C-150.
The reasons which justified the inadmissibility of amendment No. 1 also apply to amendment No. 2.

We will now proceed to amendments numbered 3 and 4 which, in the humble view of the Chair, are acceptable. It is suggested, however, that both might be considered at the same time and if eventually there is a negative vote with respect to amendment No. 3, this would have the effect of being a negative vote with respect to amendment No. 4, which would then not be put to the house.
May we also now turn to amendment No. 5 about which the Chair has some doubts and about which hon. members may wish to advise the Chair.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. For the assistance of the hon. member, I might say that the difficulty facing the Chair relates to the fact the amendment appears to go beyond the provisions of the bill. That is why I was anxious to have the views of hon. members before deciding whether the amendment ought to be put to the house.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I thank you, sir, for indicating the area in which you question this amendment. I suspected that was where Your Honour had some doubts but, with respect, I should like to argue that the amendment deals with the same subject matter dealt with in clause 7 of the bill. I do not want to hurt a case we may present later, so I will refrain from identifying exactly what I have in mind. I know that later an amendment will be introduced from this corner of the house seeking to write into this bill legislation about a matter that has not been mentioned in this bill at all. I can see we shall be on thin ice in trying to argue that that is within the four corners of Bill C-150. I merely mention that because that strengthens our case with respect to amendment No. 5. Clause 7 of Bill C-150 deals with various sexual relationships, indecent and otherwise, and makes certain provisions and changes in the law in that area as it now is. The amendment proposed by my colleague from Broadview stays within that area. It redefines the law in one or two instances and 
makes changes with respect to penalties and the kinds of charges that can be laid. It deals with matters of summary conviction and with indictable offences.
Although your doubts are understandable, Mr. Speaker, I think it is possible to set them aside. In other words, it should be possible to convince Your Honour that the amendment proposed by my friend for Broadview is not foreign to the subject matter of clause 7 of Bill C-150. It is on that basis that I think Your Honour ought to allow it.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I, too, can understand your doubts and wish to encourage them.


John Gilbert: Why?


John Napier Turner: Because I suggest, sir, that the amendment introduced by the hon. member goes beyond the scope of the clause to which it relates. It is, therefore, inadmissible and ought to be struck. The purpose of the amendment introduced as No. 5, Mr. Speaker, is to make offences under section 147 which relates to buggery or bestiality, section 148 which relates to indecent assault on a male and section 149 which relates to acts of gross indecency punishable on indictment or by way of summary conviction. At present these three offences are punishable on indictment only and carry specified penalties. An offence under section 147 carries a maximum penalty of imprisonment of 14 years; an offence under section 148 carries a penalty of maximum imprisonment for 10 years and an offence under section 149 carries maximum imprisonment of 5 years. In other words, what the hon. member is attempting to do is to amend these sections so as to give the Crown an alternative way of proceeding. It may proceed either by way of indictment or by way of summary conviction.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
The hon. member's amendment does not go to the substance of the offences. It specifies merely the procedure under which the Crown can proceed with regard to offences mentioned in these three related sections. The clause to which the amendment relates, clause 7, introduces new section 149A. New section 149A provides that two of the original sections, 147 and 149, shall not apply to any act committed in private between a husband or his wife or any two persons each of whom is 21 years or more of age, both of whom consent to the commission. What the clause in the bill strives to do is exempt from the
April 16, 1969

criminal law acts of gross indecency between consenting adults in private. In other words, it changes the substance of one particular offence under the criminal law.
The hon. member's amendment would not, I submit to Your Honour, affect the offence, relate to the conditions to be attached to the offence, relate to the fact that it should be in private or to the age of the persons concerned, nor relate to that factual situation at all. Instead it goes back to the original sections and says, we want the Crown to have an option to proceed-in a procedural way- either by way of indictment or summary proceeding.
I submit that brings into play a traditional rule of the house. It has not been affected by new Standing Order 75(5) or 75(8). They relate to the type of proceeding that can be adopted at the report stage. Subsection (5) reads:
If, not later than twenty-four hours prior to the consideration of a report stage, written notice is given of any motion to amend, delete, insert or restore any clause in a bill, it shall be printed on a notice paper.
Subsection (8) reads:
When the order of the day for the consideration of a report stage is called, any amendment of which notice has been given in accordance with section (5) of this order shall be open to debate and amendment.
In other words, we are not told anything about the relevancy or the scope of amendment. We have to assume with these new Standing Orders the traditional rules of admissibility apply. The question is, Your Honour, that under the rules of the house as interpreted by the precedents, no new amendment can be offered which is irrelevant or which goes beyond the scope of the bill or beyond the scope of the particular clause to which it relates. I believe this is made clear in citation 402(2) of Beauchesne's Fourth Edition, which reads:
A new clause will not be entertained if it is beyond the scope of a bill, inconsistent with clauses agreed to by the Committee, or substantially the same as a clause previously negatived.
Citation 406 reads in part:
Amendments are out of order if they are (a) irrelevant to the bill, or beyond its scope,-
These citations appear to be taken from May's Parliamentary Practice. For instance at page 549 of the seventeenth edition under the
Criminal Code
heading "Inadmissible Amendments" it is stated:
An amendment is out of order if it is irrelevant to the subject matter or beyond the scope of the bill, or if it is irrelevant to the subject matter or beyond the scope of the clause under consideration.
I submit to Your Honour that this amendment does not attack the substance of the clause which it purports to amend. It does not relate to the offence itself. It goes beyond the scope of the clause to the original sections of the Code and suggests that those original sections ought to be opened up by allowing the Crown the option to proceed by way of indictment or summary proceeding. This bill is not a general revision or consolidation of the Crimimail Code. It is not a completely new act or code. This omnibus bill relates to specific policy decisions relating to specific offences dealt with or amended in a specific way.
With the greatest respect I submit to Your Honour that the hon. gentleman's amendment goes beyond the scope of the clause which he attempts to affect.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: My
intervention will be very brief. I suggest the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) has missed the point. The amendment as proposed deals with clauses 147 and 149 because 149A as proposed is a delegation of penalties normally imposed under 147 and 149. The proposed amendment by the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert) does not affect the determination of guilt but will change the form of proceeding to determine guilt and affix punishment. Therefore, there is relevancy. There is no new crime introduced. It is entirely relevant to clauses 147 and 149. I submit there is every reason to accept this amendment.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, in our opinion, the amendment moved by the hon. member should be agreed to for certain reasons that I shall try to outline briefly.
We intend to amend sections 147, 148 and 149 of the Criminal Code, which bear on a particular subject.
Those sections, being difficult to enforce, give rise to many complications. It was said in a speech in the house that sections 147 and 149 of the Criminal Code had become inapplicable when acts were being committed in private between husband and wife or any two

April 16. 1969
Criminal Code
consenting adults. Now, as the law was inapplicable, the intention was to strike out those provisions of the Criminal Code.
I find, Mr. Speaker, that the amendment proposed here, amendment No. 5, merely reestablishes the facts. I think it is consistent with Beauchesne's Fourth Edition, citation 357, on page 266 which reads as follows, and I quote:
In the preparation of Bills amending existing enactments the amendments shall not ordinarily be made by clauses which add or leave out words or substitute words for others, but by clauses which re-enact the section, sub-section or other minor division, as it is amended.
And I think, Mr. Speaker, that this is consistent with parliamentary precedents, and that this amendment tends only to make more explicit the matter that is dealt with in clauses 147 and 149.
Mr. Speaker, we admit that the sections included in the Criminal Code were very difficult to apply. But, it is not by shortening them that we will make them more easy to apply. The sponsor of this motion thought there might be other means of making the law applicable and, in moving this motion he does not affect clauses 147 and 149.
Therefore, I think, Mr. Speaker, there is nothing new there, it is merely a repetition of what was formerly found in the Criminal Code. We are bringing absolutely nothing new, in terms of going further than clauses 147 and 149; we are simply making them more explicit, thus making them more easy to apply.
Mr. Speaker, I therefore believe that, for the reasons I have indicated, amendment No. 5 is acceptable.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)


John Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, the nub of the argument by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) is that the amendment is not one of substance but rather one of procedure. At times it is very difficult to distinguish between substance and procedure. What the government is doing in the proposed new section 149A is to change the gravity of the offence. It is saying that certain circumstances which otherwise would have amounted to the committal of an offence are now changed and will not be considered to amount to an offence. I have attempted to read into this amendment a procedure which bears heavily on the substantive part of the offence. There has been a lessening effect as a result

of the proposed new section 149A. My amendment is an attempt to give it a vehicle whereby it can be taken care of, whereby it can be carried out.


Mr. Speaker:: I am grateful to hon. members for their comments in connection with the amendment moved by the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert). I think I should assure hon. members that during the last few hours these amendments have been studied very carefully by the Chair with the assistance of the Table Officers and the Parliamentary Counsel. In the light of the consideration I have given to this amendment previous to coming into the house, and of course in the light of the arguments advanced by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner), which were rather pertinent so far as I am concerned, I doubt very much if it is possible for the Chair to accept the amendment.
The hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and others who have spoken in support of their point of view, have put forth an interesting argument as to whether this proposed amendment does go beyond the provisions of the bill, but I must come to the conclusion that it does, and that the citations referred to by the Minister of Justice are applicable.
Clause 7 on page 24 of Bill C-150 will provide certain exceptions to the law as stated in sections 147 and 149 of the Criminal Code. The purport of the amendment is to delete the exceptions provided for in clause 7 of Bill C-150 and to rewrite substantially sections 147, 148 and 149 of the Criminal Code itself. In other words, amendment No. 5 is a new legislative proposal in my very humble view. I hesitate to say this, having heard the strong arguments made by hon. members which perhaps cast a bit of doubt in my mind, but not to the extent that I can change my decision. I do feel that amendment No. 5 is a new legislative proposal and does introduce matters of substance which are not covered in Bill C-150 now before the house.
The minister has referred to citations 402 and 408 of Beauchesne. I think I can also refer hon. members to citation 203(1):
It is an imperative rule that every amendment must be relevant to the question on which the amendment is proposed.
Again, citation 406 of the same authority, Beauchesne's Fourth Edition, reads:
Amendments are out of order if they are
(a) irrelevant to the bill, or beyond its scope-
April 16, 1969

I should add that in considering these amendments I have made, and will make, an effort to be lenient. My consideration of the amendments will not be made with a view to ruling them out of order but rather to accepting them if, from a procedural standpoint, in the humble opinion of the Chair they can be accepted. But even with all possible leniency, I do not think I can accept this particular amendment, and I suggest with respect and humility to hon. members that it should not be put at this time.
My earlier suggestion was that all other amendments appeared to be in order. I understand the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre had some doubts1 as to whether amendments Nos. 9 and 10 ought to be combined. I would not like to be difficult about this.
In view of what I said a moment ago that I would like to lean in favour of accepting these amendments, and to facilitate the discussion in the house, I would be prepared to recognize that perhaps there should be individual discussion on 9 and 10 and that a negative vote on 9 would not necessarily negative proposed amendment No. 10. I hope this satisfies the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that I do intend to be lenient in considering the proposed amendments.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It
not only satisfies me, and pleases me, but it saves the house a half hour's speech.


Mr. Speaker:: We will therefore return to amendment No. 3 for consideration of the house.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That Bill C-150, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Parole Act, the Penitentiary Act, the Prisons and Reformatories Act and to make certain consequential amendments to the Combines Investigation Act, the Customs Tariff and the National Defence Act, be amended by deleting therefrom clause 7.
He said: Mr. Speaker, on rising to speak on this first amendment, I hope I can get your agreement that some of these amendments are vrey closely related. I do not want to make two or three speeches on each individual one. I want to expedite the matter and have the votes taken. For example, before I start my argument on amendment No. 3, I point out that amendment No. 7 is inter-related, and with your consent I might be able to discuss both phases of the matter and therefore not have to make two speeches.
Criminal Code
I now wish to deal with the reasons I think clause 7 should be deleted and, if not deleted, why the words "except as to bestiality and carnal copulation with a beast" should be added. I know what the position of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) is. He does not think that the proposed new section can be interpreted in that manner, but first I want to read what Professor Mewett said in reference to Section 149 (clause 7) as recorded at page 341 of the minutes of the Justice and Legal Affairs Committee, volume 10, of March 13:
Mr. Chairman, as far as proposed Section 149a of clause 7 of the act, which appears on page 24, is concerned, I do not think there has been a prosecution in Canada for buggery between consenting adults in private since the revision in 1953.
In that regard, I think the professor is right. What he is really saying is that if we did not have this permission de jure we had it de facto because two consenting adults, or two people who are married, are not going to go out and report what they do in private to the law officers. Professor Mewett continued:
My view is that it is desirable that the Criminal Code conform with actual practice and therefore, generally speaking, I am in favour of clause 7.
Now, I come to grips with the reason I say this clause should be deleted, or at least if not deleted that these words should be added, "except as to bestiality and carnal copulation with a beast."
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
Let me quote from Crankshaw's Criminal Code of Canada, seventh edition, 1959 at page 208, section 147:
Buggery or Bestiality, livery one who commits buggery or bestiality is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for fourteen years.
The footnote summarizes the cases in this regard. It states that buggery is also called sodomy and is the carnal copulation against nature by human beings with each other or with a beast. In other words, as I said this morning at another meeting, if you are dealing with a beast it might involve an abnormal person having relations with a beast in a normal fashion, or it might involve an abnormal person dealing abnormally with a beast.
Professor Mewett puts it very well. The Minister of Justice suggests we cannot adopt this interpretation, but if there is any doubt about this section it should be clarified. If the Minister of Justice does not want to legalize sexual intercourse in this country between human beings and beasts, I would

April 16, 1969
Criminal Code
think with the greatest respect he should clarify the law. Surely, this always involves a matter of opinion. The law is an inexact science and that is why we have so many court decisions. One has only to read the Supreme Court of Canada reports to realize that a decision made on the basis of certain facts on Monday may well be reversed on the following Tuesday or a Tuesday a year later. The second decision may be a reversal of the first, yet based on the same or similar facts as a result of a further distinction or a revision of the interpretation.
Surely, the Minister of Justice does not write off the words of Professor Mewett, who is the head of the Criminal law section of the University of Toronto. The minister graduated from McGill, but I think even those students of McGill have some respect for the University of Toronto. This is what the professor says:
There is only one point I would like to raise, and it is a legal point. It is factually impossible for two consenting adults to commit bestiality and Clause 7 purports to say that Section 147- that is, everyone who commits bestiality-does not apply to any act committed in private between a husband and wife or any two persons. I am not quite sure what that means but in my opinion, Mr. Chairman, it does not mean anything. As it stands I think it would mean that if one person committed a sexual act with his dog he would be guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for 14 years. If two people did it they would not be guilty of any offence.
In other words, what the professor says is that if two people were in the room or an atmosphere of privacy and one held the animal while the other committed the act, they would be homefree under Section 149. Why do I say that? Under Section 147, everyone who commits buggery or bestiality is guilty of an indictable offense. Why does the minister suggest in the new Section 149-A that Section 147 does not apply to such an act committed in privacy? Section 147 does not deal with homosexuality between males, gross indecency between males and females or acts between females, it deals with buggery and bestiality.
I read somewhere recently that someone was worried about this situation in that you could not have bestiality between two consenting adults. What we must look at in this section is the fact that the act is not defined. It does not state that this must be an act between adults. This involves an act or pantomime in private. This is what Professor Mewett suggests. I should like to emphasize this point because this whole matter to me is disgusting.

I am not pointing the finger at the minister so far as his philosophy is concerned. I gathered from what he said at the committee he did not want to legalize this practice. He said it was beyond him what the professor was thinking about, and that may be so, but I suggest to him with the greatest respect that the professor might be right. I do not say he is right but he could be right. God help us if the minister is wrong. These laws require clarification.
Surely, this parliament of Canada, which governs a Christian nation, is not going to legalize sexual intercourse between two consenting adults and an animal. Apparently if two people do this they are not guilty of any offence, but if three do it or one does it these individuals would be liable to 14 years imprisonment. Surely, we are entitled to an appropriate amendment clarifying this law. If the minister does* not want to legalize this type of thing why does he not say so, particularly in respect of bestiality and carnal copulation with a beast?
Crankshaw was a greater expert than either the minister or myself, and he distinguished between these words. Surely, the minister cannot, in seriousness, want anything but clarification in this regard. Many people in, this* country have indicated a complete lack of understanding in respect of homosexuality. I have always taken the position that we should not deal with homosexuality in the Criminal Code. This should be dealt with as a sickness or an ailment. It should be treated from a psychological or physical point of view by psychiatrists or doctors, but even they do not agree. Psychiatrists suggest that homosexuality is the result of environment. I have read many books on the subject and I suggest that what we are attempting to do here is legalize acts between two consenting adults over 21 years of age, a man and wife, indecent or homosexual, providing they are carried out in private.
What Professor Mewett suggests is that this measure may legalize the right of two consenting adults over 21 to have sexual relations with an animal in private.


Mr. Flemming:: They are making it respectable, that is what they are doing.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Yes, I agree with you. Clause 7 of the new bill states that Section 147 does not apply to any act committed in private. If this does not apply to bestiality or buggery, why is there any reference to Section 147? There is nothing in Section 147 that
April 16. 1969

applies to human beings except in respect of buggery. The definition of buggery is' the same as that in respect of sodomy, that is carnal copulation against nature by human beings. This refers to buggery or bestiality. The section covers bestiality but this is exempt because it suggests that Section 147 dealing with bestiality does not apply to any act committed between a husband and wife or two individuals of age in private.
During my experience as a trial lawyer I remember a case involving a husband who insisted that his wife have sexual relations with an animal. I have become aware of this kind of environment in this nation. I am aware of cases of bestiality involving one adult and an animal. Section 147 which refers to bestiality will not apply to any act committed by a husband and wife in privacy. It will not apply to acts committed by two adults over 21, providing there is consent.
Let me suggest to the minister that the professor of a leading university in this country would not appear before the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs to utter complete nonsense. This professor appeared with a background of experience and knowledge. I asked for this witness following some argument as to whether the committee should call witnesses. This witness, with his knowledge of criminal jurisprudence, said clearly and squarely that this clause would legalize sexual relations in some form or another with an animal providing it was committed by two consenting adults over 21. In my opinion that is absolutely wrong.
* (4:20 p.m.)
I ask the minister to reconsider his position in this respect. I know that he has legal advisers in the Department of Justice, but they can be wrong. I say this with no disrespect to the officers of the Department of Justice, because at one time there were more lawyers in the department from the university from which I graduated than from any other university in Canada. Therefore, naturally I have respect for them and their opinions. But the officers of the Department of Justice are not infallible. In how many cases throughout this land have they said one thing and the courts have said they are wrong? They are only giving legal opinions. Just because the Department of Justice has given its opinion, it does not mean that is right. The officers of the department have no divine right to be correct in their interpretation of the law.
Criminal Code
I have had confrontations with the Department of Justice. I do not want to deal with those, but as an illustration I will mention one case. In the case to which I refer, the judge happened to agree with me. The Department of Justice laid a charge against the breweries under the Combines Investigation Act. The Department of Justice said they had a case. When they got to court, what kind of case did they have? In this instance, the provinces set the price of beer at 10 cents or 20 cents a glass. The case of the department was laughed right out of court. Mr. Robinette, Q.C. was on that case, as my hon. friend knows.
Therefore, because the Department of Justice tells the minister there is nothing wrong with this clause, I do not stand in awe of their opinion; and multiplicity of the same opinion is still the same opinion. I ask the minister to consider this question in the light of what the professor said and in, the light of my argument. I want to summarize what I have said. Section 147 deals with bestiality. Proposed section 149A provides:
Sections 147 and 149 do not apply to any act committed in private between
(a)	a husband and his wife, or
(b)	any two persons, each of whom is twenty-one years or more of age,
both of whom consent to the commission of the act.
My hon. friend has forgotten one thing. He thinks that the act we are talking about is a pantomime between the people concerned. The section does not say that. The act could be conducted, not with a third person but with a third ingredient, namely, an animal- two people twenty-one years of age, and an animal. It is very important that the minister understands this. This is my understanding of the act. I think I have made my point, Mr. Speaker and I shall not say any more as far as that matter is concerned.
I hope the minister will take notice of the argument which I have been able to present in the House of Commons and was not able to present in, the same fashion in the committee. I have been able to weigh what was said in the committee, because we have a record of the proceedings of the committee. This is why we have committees. It is no new, great thing to have a standing committee study a bill clause by clause; we have been doing this ever since parliament was created after confederation. The only thing we have done away with is clause by clause study of a bill in committee of the whole house.

April 16, 1969
Criminal Code
Therefore, when it is said that the new rules are great and we have reached heaven in this regard, I point out that we have always had this heaven in respect of clause by clause study of bills. The hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) was the main spokesman of our party in respect of the transportation bill. That was before the new rules came into effect. So, when we study a bill clause by clause we are only doing what traditionally has been done by parliament for a very long time. In view of this, we should not hear any more nonsense about how these great, new rules are working out. The rule with regard to the clause by clause study of amendments may be good. I do not write it off. We must wait and see how it works out.
If the minister stands up after I have finished and says he will not accept my argument because of the beautiful argument put forward by his advisers, I am finished; but under the old rules I could have risen again and spoken. I would have done so, because I do not want to have this kind of debauchery in our nation. I think there is a place for a filibuster. If people tell me to get out on with the job, I will say to them, "Do you want me to legalize sexual intercourse with the animals of Canada?" I am prepared, if I can find any rule which will enable me to do so, to stay here and debate this question for days, because this provision is against my Christian faith and the Christian faith of this nation.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak on amendment No. 3, since I have myself presented an amendment bearing No. 4, which is exactly similar to the one the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Wool-liams) has just discussed.
I do not have a great deal to add to what he has just said and I am entirely in agreement with what he said regarding clause 7 of Bill C-150.
If I have myself proposed an amendment to delete clause 7, relating to clause 149A of the Criminal Code, it is in order to leave unchanged the Criminal Code.
Mr. Speaker, since the government proposed to amend the Criminal Code regarding acts of gross indecency, we have forgotten to clear up the question of the legislation on homosexuality. There has been much talk, perhaps too much, in the public in that respect. Authorized agencies perhaps have also talked too much.

I have on hand an article dealing with the question. As a matter of fact it brings up this matter and states that too much importance is being given to the act committed between two consenting adults1.
In this article, one will find information which is quite remarkable and exact. I wish to put it in the official report so that all those who take the trouble to read it will be aware of that viewpoint.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
I am referring to an article published in the magazine L'Equipe, which reads as follows:
The bill designed to legalize homosexuality will long be talked about. It would be unfortunate if parliament were to pass this piece of legislation in its present form.
I feel that some members have realized its importance as we are now discussing amendments to Bill C-150 with regard to clause 7. The article goes on:
Because of the publicity given to this matter, a large number of uninformed people are under the impression that homosexuality is a normal thing, while in fact, it is a form of sexual perversion. The bill does not say this; yet, everyone should be aware of the fact. When a similar measure was adopted in England, they had the courage at least to tell the truth about this evil that is homosexuality.
Here, we heard men and women say on the air that they are in favour of the legislation because they themselves practise that kind of perversion to which they find nothing abnormal; they are sick but unaware of it.
At this point, Mr. Speaker, I would like to remark that, our national broadcasting corporation, the C.B.C., has given much importance to that problem and has allowed sexual perverts to express themselves freely and sometimes in an arrogant manner on the air. Canadians pay taxes to hear too many such programs which they dislike. I go on reading:
It is universally acknowledged by doctors and psychiatrists that such a perversion is often curable; but if people are led to believe that it is a normal state of life, it is to be feared that far from improving, the situation will get worse. If experts concur in saying that it is a disease or an abnormal psychological state, it is unthinkable that under the pretext of "freedom", such a sexual perversion is allowed to spread, because freedom, when it is well understood, implies the respect of the liberty of others. Human nature being what it is, we see with dismay partisans of that practice leading others astray, because people engaged in such practices are usually indifferent towards those of the other sex, when they do not hate them. And that is what is going to be legalized? Will there be an end to that?
Mr. Speaker, a few years ago, one such sexual pervert assaulted boys who objected to
April 16, 1969

such perversions and he killed them. He murdered them to satisfy his lust. Such things occur too often, Mr. Speaker. Such sexual perverts are not satisfied with meeting other perverts; too often they try by every astute means available to pervert boys and sometimes, they kill or pervert. By legalizing homosexuality, such sexual perverts are given full liberty.
And the article goes on:
Granted, the sick in that category are not all criminals, even if a great number of them should be behind bars because of the scandal they cause; but instead of trying to legalize an abnormal situation, we should adopt legal measures to reduce the number of those sick people through appropriate treatment.
Mr. Speaker, I think that instead of legalizing an existing situation, the duty of the government should be to protect those individuals by treating their sickness like that of any other sick person.
In Canada, we have managed to control tuberculosis. With the appropriate means, we can control homosexuality, since we recognize and admit that it is a sickness.
The formation of citizens worthy of the name raises enough problems as it is, without adding a new one which will contribute to ruin lives for ever.
Surely our sex-oriented movies do enough damage as it is.
Saint Paul's warning in his Epistle to the Romans should make all Christians stop and think; speaking of the pagan's moral conception as regards the creation, Saint Paul writes:
"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature; and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recom-pence of their error which was meet."
It is high time we tried to give a new value to the role of man, as well as of woman, rather than adopt "legal" measures that tend to degrade it. It would be much more beneficial to educate men so as to make them more manly, and women to make them more feminine; they would be the first to benefit from it and society would be much more healthy. Otherwise, we are going straight towards revolution, if not decay.
Mr. Speaker, this article I wanted to put on record deserves all our attention, because it explains clearly what the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) and the government want to do by proposing to legalize homosexuality.
Mr. Speaker, there is another point I want to make concerning subclause 1 of clause 7, to
Criminal Code
be added to section 149A of the Criminal Code, where it says:
-between any two persons, each of whom is twenty-one years or more of age,
Well, Mr. Speaker, I want to point out to the house that if this amendment is accepted as proposed by the government, there will be many difficulties in applying this act, namely in trying to determine the age of persons of about 21.
I am not too familiar with liquor laws in other provinces, but in Quebec people under 21 are not allowed in beverage rooms. We can imagine, Mr. Speaker how difficult it is to apply in the province of Quebec, any law where age is involved in view of the fact that young people have no identification cards. The same problem would be created by this amendment to the Criminal Code, namely to determine the age of young people involved.
Now, why should it be normal or moral for young people of 21 or more to commit such acts whereas those very acts would be immoral for those of 18, 19 or 20, who would not be allowed to commit them? The latter would be entitled to wonder about it. And the younger who are sexually ill or perverted would resort to all sorts of tricks to take advantage of the provisions of the act.
I remember a young boy who had been admonished rather brutally by his father for swearing. Then the child asked his father: When shall I be old enough to have a right to swear like you dad?
The young people might be prompted to ask themselves the same question concerning homosexuality and they might think: when we are 21 we shall be able to do what our elders have now a right to do.
I feel therefore, Mr. Speaker, that the house should reject clause 7 of Bill C-150, even if the sexual problem in Canada must be fully looked into.


Mr. Ralph Stewart (Cochrane):: Mr. Speaker, I just want to make a very short argument in reply to my friend, the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams). Certainly, I am no expert in the interpretation of the law as is my friend, the hon. member for Calgary North. However, I think I can argue this without reference to legal terms, strictly on the basis of the English language.
Criminal Code

April 16, 1969
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
In the section to which the hon. member was referring, 149 (a), the word "between" is used, and in the English language "between" denotes two ingredients, to adopt the word he used, not three or more. If it were a question of three of more, or if there were a question of an animal being involved with two consenting adults, the word "among" would be used. I do not think the hon. member's arguments that this can be considered to legalize two consenting adults committing acts with a beast is one which holds water.
The hon. member for Calgary North is putting forward amendment No. 7. He is also sponsoring the amendment put forth by the hon. member for Sainte-Marie (Mr. Valade). This indicates to me that he is in favour of either one or the other, or of both, and that should his own amendment fail he would be ready to argue that we should remove clause 7 completely as suggested by the hon. member for Sainte-Marie.
He told us that when he speaks to his constituents he wants to be able to tell them that he opposed this clause because of his Christian upbringing. I should like to ask him whether he would also oppose such other things as we find in paragraph (a) which speaks about acts committed between a husband and his wife. Would he destroy the whole clause and thereby retain as a crime acts committed between husband and wife which are accepted by sociologists, doctors and the informed public in general as perfectly normal parts of conjugal love between a husband and his wife? I think the hon. member for Calgary North, in putting forth these arguments, does so with tongue in cheek.
I should like to make one comment regarding homosexuality. The hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise) spoke at length against any action which would have the effect of taking homosexuality out of the realm of crime. I must say his arguments are not very convincing. One can hardly compare the habit of blaspheming with homosexual acts.
Homosexuality is considered by some people to be abnormal, but among those who are homosexual it is considered normal for them. If these people wish to carry on certain acts in private without bothering anyone else I do not think it is up to us as legislators to try to keep those acts within the realm of crime, thereby causing all kinds of other problems in the sociological make-up of this country.


Martial Asselin: My
remarks, Mr. Speaker, will be very brief.
I should like simply to point out some essential reasons, in my opinion, for striking out, clause 7 of Bill C-150.
We have been wondering, Mr. Speaker, for the past few years in what direction the present government was heading for. In 1965, capital punishment was abolished. And when our friends argue that by trying to have Bill C-150 adopted they are reflecting the views of the Canadian people, since they were elected last June, I suggest they are wrong because the election campaign was not centered on the omnibus bill but rather on "trudeaumania."
Therefore, when Liberal members say they have received a clear, specific mandate from the Canadian people who are entitled to request parliament to adopt Bill C-150, I say they are wrong.
When capital punishment was abolished, it was supposed to be an improvement. But if you look at statistics, Mr. Speaker, you will see that since the abolishment of capital punishment, the number of crimes in the province of Quebec has increased by at least 20 per cent.
There are good things in Bill C-150, but if the minister thinks the passage of clause 7 of this bill will reduce the number of homosexuals, I tell him he is wrong.
The minister says he is not concerned with the morality of certain crimes. May I remind him that the government is responsible for making laws for the people as a whole and not only to protect a small group within society which, unfortunately-it has been said more than once-commits acts which are abnormal. I suggest that by trying to have this bill passed, he is showing a negative approach to the problem and refuses to face up to it.
If such people are abnormal, as the minister and some government members claim, let us find more effective ways and preventive measures to help them.
I practised law for 19 years, Mr. Speaker, and in my office I met some of those people who were suffering from the ailment known as homosexuality. The only thing we do for those people is to forbid them to practise homosexuality.
The government has never taken any preventive or remedial measure te>
try to help them out of the situation in which they have wallowed for several years.
April 16. 1969

Yet, alcoholics can be treated, as can the mentally ill.
When I am told that homosexuality is to be legalized because homosexuals are abnormal or ill, I say that the government is remiss in its duty when it opens the door wide without first trying to protect society in general.
The first duty of the government is to protect the citizens. With regard to legalizing homosexuality, I remind the government that when legislating outside of natural laws, one errs most of the time. With his experience, the minister has surely been aware of this for a long time.
We are told that this applies to consenting adults, to majors. It is illogical to refer to persons of 21 years of age or more. And why not to persons of 20 years of age? Or 19 years of age? Or even 17, who are also mature? Why limit it to people of 21 years?
Let us see how illogical this measure is.
The bill says: "Between any two persons, each of whom is 21 years or more of age". What has majority got to do with it? As if persons of 18 or 19 were not as mature, in some cases, as those of 21. I do not understand it. It is said here: "between two consenting adults."
The minister knows quite well that, in general, homosexuals do not wait until they are attracted by persons of age. They are rather interested in youngsters. The minister will tell us that to attack youngsters would be a crime.
The minister knows quite well that those people now considered as criminals under the law if they attack youngsters will not stop there if they are permitted to make love with consenting males of 21.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
It is actually said: "Between consenting males of 21". I say that the minister opens the door wide and that it may be dangerous.
Those people will find all sorts of pretexts to be able to pick up, youngsters to try and relieve themselves, and this is exactly what homosexuals are looking for: It is not, then, to make love with persons of age which is important. The minister knows it. This does not interest them much.
I know it by experience also, as a lawyer, because I have not often seen persons of age who like to indulge in homosexual acts. Homosexuals are mostly inclined to pervert youngsters and the minister opens the door even wider.
Criminal Code
The minister will say that they will be punished. The police will not be very much interested in chasing homosexuals after the passage of this legislation. They will be left free to do as they please. So the following consequences shall ensue. Instead of voting legislation to help homosexuals cure themselves since they are really sick, the way is cleared for them to act more freely. They are told that what they are doing is legal without any restrictions, except of course where young people are concerned. This will not prevent the 21 year-old homosexuals to covet them.
The government is making a mistake when it claims that it helps these people. It shirks its duty because the first obligation of a government is to legislate in order to protect society as a whole.
If there are people on the borderline, sick human beings, they should be cured and helped. Government must pass legislation, have clinics and make grants to associations which will be able to cure such people. There is no mention of that in the legislation. The minister will say that such a matter falls under the jurisdiction of the provinces. Nothing is said about action to be taken, grants to be made to the provinces so that facilities for treatment may be provided for homosexuals. This legislation is simply negative.
Instead of facing the problem, the minister simply closed his eyes and said: We shall choose the easiest way, we shall legalize the law and we shall not hear anything more about homosexuality.
The same thing will happen as when capital punishment was abolished in 1965. We witness today in the province of Quebec and in the others a large increase in crime.
Even if we talked for days and days, I feel that it would not make much difference. The government has made up its mind and my hon. friend the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Cotd)-who tells me not to get angry- knows quite well that if he were on our side and could vote freely, he would be the first one to vote against the legislation to legalize homosexuality and abortion.
We at least can vote freely on those questions. We can vote freely but the minister and the members of the Liberal party have been instructed to support the bill blindly and at any cost without any regard for their conscience, their philosophy or their background. At least, our leader has allowed us to vote according our conscience and I thank him publicly.

April 16, 1969
Criminal Code
Needless to say, Mr. Speaker, that I approve the amendment moved by the hon. member for Sainte-Marie (Mr. Valade) and the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise). I think that as the result of our few comments, the minister could with his legal advisers think that the arguments which we have put forward are logical and sensible enough and that perhaps he could this evening or tomorrow tell us that he is withdrawing clause 7 concerning the legalization of homosexuality.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: In the first place, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that I unreservedly support the comments of my colleague from Charlevoix (Mr. Asselin).

First of all, I should like to say I find it passing strange that these proposals with regard to sections 147 to 149 are put before this house on the basis that parliament has no business in the bedrooms of the nation; that it has no business entering the private lives of people to this extent. While there is no acceptance of the morality of such acts, presumably society does not have to be protected against them.
As my colleague has just said, the law exists for the protection of society. If you go through the Code from beginning to end, Mr. Speaker, every offence therein enumerated is made punishable for the protection of society. Each of the offences carries with it the connotation of a transgression of morality. Take, for example, the provisions dealing with theft. Is the minister sayinig that there is less morality involved in cases of theft than in cases of sexual aberration such as provided for in sections 147 to 149?
Why is there no provision in the bill to remove attempted suicide from the list of offences? If a person takes an overdose of sleeping pills or something in private, how does that affect any other person? There is no scandal involved; it is an act done in private. Yet society must be protected against such cases. In other words, this particular airy-fairy conduct is singled out.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: You have the right word there.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Yes, and we can apply a lot of other terms to it. Both of the practices dealt with here are repugnant to me, yet it seems to me we are giving them approval in that we are removing the sanc-

tion of law. I would like to ask the members of this house who are practising lawyers whether they have had any cases of bestiality.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)


Mr. Otio:: How does that injure society?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I do not
know why the minister insists that the exceptions here will not affect the act of bestiality. Yet an act of bestiality committed in private is still an offence. Will the pig squeal? Will the dog bark? One may ask, how will the public be scandalized? Yet, the act is deemed criminal. I agree with my colleague for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) that the way the exception is created means that two persons can participate in an act of bestiality and get off scotfree if they are over 21 years of age. That is what wilil happen according to the amendments proposed with regard to section 149 of the act. Frankly, I find it impossible to follow the thinking in this regard. I have searched my mind for any rationale as to why this was put in. If it is right to remove the legal sanction from acts of homosexuality between consenting adults, and I shall have something to say about the artificial division at the age of 21, and from certain acts as between husband and wife, why do we not remove a whole gamut of offences, including attempted suicide and other acts involving an individual only and no other human.
These acts still carry a moral sanction. Will anyone tell me why it is that if two persons aged 20 years and 11 months commit a certain act it shall be a crime but if they commit it one month later it shall not be a crime? To me, that is completely illogical. I ask the minister, since we are concerned with the protection of society, has he ever been involved at the high school level with incipient homosexuality? This is where it starts. This is the functioning of nature. You become aware of a ring of persons engaged in unnatural conduct. It may take place among girls, and I have known of that, or among boys. You tell them that not only is it morally wrong, but it is against the law. Morality is equated with law in the minds of those young people. But now they will come back and' say, "Yes, but when we are 21 we can do it and it will no longer be immoral or illegal."


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That's like the liquor laws.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, this house is being asked to amend the Criminal Code in this sense. What are we doing, Mr. Speaker? Are we basing our law
April 16, 1969

on certain legislative amendments which have been introduced into the law of the United Kingdom where this subject is treated in a manner suggesting that anybody can carry out any form of conduct? But show me a country that is sicker at heart and sicker at soul than is Britain today. I have known the Britain of many years ago and my heart bleed's at the moves and attitudes of so many people of that country today. If you go back in history you will see that the same line of conduct has brought down nations.
We must accept degrees of morality and adhere to them. We are not entering an area of permissiveness, Mr. Speaker. No, this is licentiousness. This is not merely a permissive morality that is being introduced. This is open licence.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: It is licentiousness.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Yes, licentiousness. I should like to return again to this proposal to set up some sort of age qualification with regard to certain conduct. Do we say we are not concerned about morals and that we are going to remove legal sanctions against immoral conduct? Will anyone tell me that breaking and entering is not immoral or that any number of other acts are not immoral? Yet we are told in this legislation that while certain acts may be immoral they will not be illegal. In this day and age it seems that if you say certain conduct is not illegal, the concept of immorality goes through the window.
In the light of this, can the minister tell me how he can justify retaining the provisions in the Code against attempted suicide-not that I am an advocate of not punishing a person who attempts to commit suicide. I think it is an immoral act. Oh yes, it is immoral for a person who, shall we say, is in charge of his faculties to attempt suicide. I do not think that you, Mr. Speaker, as an individual have the moral right to take your life. You have no right to cast aside your life. You, as a sane and rational individual, may feel you have that right, yet there is a legal sanction against attempted suicide. So, I heartily approve of the amendment which would delete clause 7 of the bill and restore and maintain the law with regard to bestiality and homosexuality.


René Matte: Mr. Speaker,
I must confess I am a little ashamed to talk about that problem in this house, in such dignified surroundings. When I say this, I
Criminal Code
express the opinion of the great majority of my constituents.
It is almost scandalous to see that the representatives of the people must presently discuss those matters. There is a tremendous difference between the proposed legislation and public opinion, at least as far as Quebec is concerned. The difference is so big, Mr. Speaker, that I even asked myself the following question: How can it be explained? What representations prompted the inclusion of clause 7 in the bill? Who wanted it?
I think our function is to make laws that are justified and justifiable, that the majority of the population really needs, and for which there are numerous representations. It is then the moment to legislate.
We did not legislate about satellites in. 1900 because it was out of the question. I believe that at the present time most people are not in favour of legalizing homosexuality. That is why many representations are made to legalize it.
I can prove my point, Mr. Speaker. In question No. 789 that I put on the order paper, I asked-because I am opposed to such things-what prompted such a move. I am personally against it. Most people in my riding agree with me. But elsewhere in Canada, some are perhaps in favour of it. I was wondering about that and I put the following question on the order paper:
1.	Are any organizations exerting pressure upon the government to promote adoption of the omnibus bill?
2.	If so, what are the names of these organizations?
3.	On which of the three points, homosexuality ... abortion-
What did the minister reply? The reply to the first part of the question was to the effect that no organization was pushing on for the passing of this bill. Then, why such a bill?
I am wondering whether in all the literature we have been receiving since September, homosexuality and abortion were not the targets of most representations. Save for a few exceptions, nobody was in favour of passing this bill. It may also be asked whether such pressure was not exerted behind closed doors.
We have noticed with some pleasure this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, that members of the Conservative party shared our viewpoint, and I wish to congratulate in particular the two previous speakers. If they were voicing the opinion of the majority in their party, and I think that all Quebec M.P.'s, including those

April 16. 1969
Criminal Code
on the government side, are against this clause, like the great majority of the population, I do believe-and I hope so because of my optimistic nature-that the house could vote for this amendment.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
I cannot quite see how a member, in particular a Quebec member-I do not know what the situation is in other provinces- could vote against this amendment.
I am optimistic to a certain extent, and I hope that finally the light will dawn and that our role, the role of the house and the role of the government, will not be debased by the sponsoring of pieces of legislation which nobody wants.
Mr. Speaker, many arguments would warrant rejection of this amendment. Several have already been put forward and I shall point out the most interesting ones.
It has been said-and I agree with it myself-that this section will absolutely not check the expansion of that dreadful plague.
Mr. Speaker, if you read the history of certain countries, you realize that those who have accepted such depravity have been brought down, as if by mere coincidence. This is what happened to Ancient Greece and Rome. Let us read those portions again, if need be, and realize how the degradation of morals simply reflects a state of decline.
And it is not because our mother-in-law, England, has passed legislation of that kind that we have to follow the decline of that country, if I may use the expression.
Too often we felt compelled, in this government, to copy the laws enacted by the Parliament of London, and I do not see why we should feel obliged to do so, since I am not afraid to be wrong in saying that a referendum would reveal that 95 per cent of the Canadian citizens would be opposed to the legalization of homosexuality.
When expressing that view, we feel to be in a strong position, because we are sure of what we say, and the minister should also share that view, but he answers categorically: No organization presses for the passage of that bill. There has not been enough research done so far to allow a listing of the various questions pertaining to homosexuality. Should the phenomenon be placed under the heading of crime, of a psychic or sociological distortion, or simply of a disorder which could be cured by the medical science?
We do not know enough on all the aspects of the problem to be in a position to legislate

adequately at this time. We are not here simply for the pleasure of passing laws. Besides, it seems to me that there are plenty of other extremely important matters to be dealt with. For example, the increase in the incidence of that plague would be particularly serious in our penal institutions.
Mr. Speaker, I would like, if I may, refer to an article published in the Tuesday March 4, 1969 issue of the Journal de Montreal, which describes the situation prevailing in American penitentiaries, and I quote:
Young convicts are corrupted by perverts.
The report comes from Washington.
Following an investigation by a Senate committee on homosexuality in penitentiaries, a young Negro aged 25 has been mentioned as a typical case of that scourge of which young prisoners are a victim.
After hearing the testimony of this Negro, referred to as John Doe, a former confirmed morphia addict, attorney Arlen Specter, of the district of Philadelphia stated that, in the penitentiaries, every new prisoner is approached barely a few hours after his arrival and that, if he refuses to take part in some unspeakable acts, he is literally raped and subjected to the roughest treatment.
As for senator Thomas J. Dodd, he deplored public indifference to the "unspeakable conditions existing in the penitentiaries, under which prisoners who at the start could have been rehabilitated become hardened criminals".
Attorney Specter explained that he was compiling very upsetting testimonies on the prevalence of homosexuality in the prisons and that he intended to submit, in support of such testimonies, "live" descriptions of obscene assaults upon young prisoners. "Such descriptions will not be to everyone's taste," added the attorney, "but they are in accordance with the facts." He added that homosexuality was one of the major problems in American penitentiary institutions and that drastic remedial measures were urgently needed.
At a time when our neighbours to the south are greatly alarmed by the very serious problem of homosexuality, we, in this country, acting like smart-alecks, like know-alls, under the guidance of a fifty-year-old young man, are getting ready to adopt measures such as this one. We should, in all decency an in all logic, wait until the results of the investigations to be carried out in the United States are known and then deal with the problem as it exists in our own country.
The absence of psycho-social investigations indicates that we should not adopt this clause now and, consequently, we should vote in favour of the amendment to delete it.
Therefore, the increase of the number of criminal offenders will become a serious problem, as one of my colleagues pointed out
April 16. 1969

it a while ago. This problem was raised a few years ago, and we know how the people reacted. Let us not complicate things, even if such occurrences are infrequent. One or two cases per year enough to raise a scare, and this will not lessen the so-called anarchy that exists throughout the world. It is not by legalizing the offences of sexual deviates that we shall solve our problems resulting from anarchy.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
If homosexuality is to be legalized between two consenting twenty-one-year old adults now, Mr. Chairman, shall we be able to tell their age? It is difficult enough in the beverage-rooms of Quebec, for example, where it is forbidden to sell drinks to people under 21. It is a real headache in grills and in the hotels of Quebec. Why? Because the young girls of 15, 16 and 17 are all 21 years old and they can prove it. It is absolutely impossible to verify the age of people.
Besides, the law is so illogical, particularly the section now under study, that I can clearly picture the young lads 20 years 11 months and 30 days old-those who were born on the 28th of February will be real lucky-waiting impatiently under stress the opportunity to celebrate their 21st anniversary by jumping into the five arms of the blue eyed boy of their dreams. I do say five. So, we have here a most ridiculous situation and it is attempted to approve and legalize it. I have the approval of 100 per cent of the people, at least in my riding and in the rest of the province of Quebec. The very fact of having to speak of such a th ng is scandalous itself and those who will object and say we are just being scrupulous, that these things are outdated and old-fashioned and that we are back, in Quebec, to the old days when the clergy was all powerful, those who say such things are absolutely wrong, in my opinion.
True morality is for everybody. It is not merely a question of religion but a question of being a human person, of respecting the human person. And even if there were thousands and thousands of such people, it would be unthinkable to legalize such a thing.
Otherwise, we should do the same in every other field. Once you legalize a disease you must legalize all others. That would be, Mr. Speaker, something utterly ridiculous. I therefore believe it is absolutely essential that we now vote for this amendment, that we reject clause 7 of the present bill for which we cannot see any purpose.
Criminal Code
I heard a moment ago a member on the far right who said, in order to explain the terms "between married persons," that the government wanted to adopt the bill because, according to the present act, married people might be indicted for, gross indecency.
Mr. Speaker, this is simply ridiculous.
If I went and practiced exhibitionism with my wife, on the steps of a church or in a public place, it is only right that I should be arrested. But in private such things are quite normal. We do not do that in public. Is there anyone in the country who can say he has been arrested because he had marital relations with his wife? Just tell us because as far as I am concerned, it is just sheer madness.
Why are we presented with such an argument? Evasions were used to stick that into the heads of certain people, mainly of those who have been swept away by the wave of "trudeaumania." They were persuaded to adopt that bill after being told that it was ridiculous, that the law does not provide for that, since its present form, it could cause married people to be arrested.
To my mind, this is an absolutely disgraceful way of getting this type of bill passed.
There is no problem. When two consenting adults are alone, when they do not cause any scandal, when there is no witness, is there any problem? Are those people arrested? For them to be arrested, they have to be seen by someone.
I fail to see the reason for article 7. If two young men are in a hotel room in Ottawa, if no one is aware of it, they will not be bothered. If they engage in degrading homosexual practices, and others see them, a complaint will be lodged. There must be some complaint or other, or else, those acts which are contrary to nature must be committed in public.
We will always be against homosexuality. Besides, even if this bill allows homosexuality between persons of 21 years of age, it recognizes the fact that these acts must not be committed in public or cause a scandal.
According to the law as it stands, nothing has changed. Two individuals, alone, who have no witness, can do what they please, and in peace. That is one more reason in favour of the amendment to have this clause deleted. We would then give cause to all Canadian citizens to have a higher opinion of this house which is often called the great hall of the nation. We should avoid its becoming the great fall of the nation.

April 16, 1969
Criminal Code
It is therefore imperative that we try to improve the reputation of this house by adopting the amendment moving the deletion of clause 7.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)


Steven Otto: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. I should like to reply to some of the arguments' put forward by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), some of which seem to be logical. His arguments were based on the old idea that morality is tied in with the law. One would presume from his speech that morality is the result of legislation and was devised by legislators and members of the church. One might come to the conclusion that morality is a permanent thing and that it never changes. Let me remind the hon. member of some early history.
Morality was- not originally the prerogative of the church, particularly in pre-Christian days. Morality was the prerogative of military forces. At that time cowardice was immoral and illegal. We have come a long way since then. Subsequently, religious leaders undertook to guide, in respect of morality, and control the conduct of the people. Indeed, there was a long struggle, as outlined in English history, when the state attempted to take some of these powers from the church and put them into law.
One cannot say what morality is or suggest, as did the hon. member, that it is closely tied to the law. You may not be able to divide the two but you can recognize the change.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Steven Otto: Yes.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Would the hon. member care to offer an opinion as the whether an act of homosexuality or bestiality is immoral?


Steven Otto: If one examines' the early history of civilization he will find that homosexuality was quite common. This did not become immoral until the Christian era. There was an historical purpose for this change. Morality is dictated by religious orders.


An hon. Member:: You did not answer the question.


Steven Otto: Religious organizations' now make the laws which control and guide the mores of a nation.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Obviously we are living in a sick society.


Steven Otto: Yes, but the fact that this is a degenerated society does not mean that the failure to pass this law will help it. If one examines the history of the Roman empire he will find that after Constantine, Hadrian tried to introduce strong measures to bring back many of the old gods. He tried to bring the Roman empire into fine, but he failed and the Roman empire fell apart. If our society is going to fall apart the passage of this measure will not be the cause.
Morality changes. As I said a moment ago, the conduct or the definition of morality or immorality is no longer a prerogative of religion or the church. The church suggests that it is not a sin to be poor, but our society suggests that to be poor is immoral. We know that it is immoral to be old. All these things change. By and large, the defining of morality and immorality is being assumed by technocrats and psychiatrists rather than by the state. Not long ago the Medical Association defined death as that state when the brain stopped functioning. It made no mention of the soul. The Medical Association accepted that without question. It is not those members of the medical profession-psychiatrists and others-who state that homosexuality on the part of individuals over the age of 21 is immoral. Members of the medical profession tell us that homosexuality is a sickness and that with present day knowledge there is no remedy for it.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That is only one opinion.


Mr.   Olio@: That is not only one opinion, that is the consensus of many opinions as a result of studies by psychiatrists and others. There is apparently no cure.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Perhaps they should see a psychiatrist.


Mr.   Oilo@: The journals of the American Psychiatric Association are in the library. They contain report after report by psychiatrists which indicate that homosexuality is an illness and that it cannot be cured. In any event, this is recognized as an illness. Hon. gentlemen opposite do not believe this, but there is evidence to support the argument that homosexuality is not a criminal matter. These people should not be treated as criminals. This definition has nothing to do with the old concept of morality.
April 16, 1969

History indicates that morality has been tied closely to legislation. We must recognize the facts as they exist. No one opposite has explained what benefits there might be in continuing to take criminal action against these people who are sick, and no one has denied that they are sick.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Would the hon. member answer another question? Taking his argument to its logical conclusion, does the hon. member think for one minute that this bill will cure anything? The bill refers to consenting adults and married couples committing acts in private. I should like to know what the hon. member thinks about the people who belong to these clubs in various urban centres. Does the hon. member think these acts are being committed in private? Let us get to the meat of this bill.


Steven Otto: I have discussed this matter with the minister, particularly in respect of age. I do not wish to usurp the minister's position. He will explain his reasons in respect of age and consenting adults. In any event, there is no point in attempting to legislate something that will not be accepted by the Canadian people. We must make every effort to adopt legislation which is acceptable.


Hon. Theogene Ricard (Sainl-Hyacinihe):: Mr. Speaker, I have no great speech to make on the measure before the house, but still I should like to make a few remarks as pater-familias.
First of all, I must say I am opposed to homosexuality and I fail to see how this legislation can be justified. I also find it difficult to understand how the government members can fight for this measure with so much enthusiasm.
I am sure the minister himself would rather someone else had to justify his stand with regard to homosexuality and the bill now before the house.
Mr. Speaker, I cannot put forward many arguments, because previous speakers have shown in a very eloquent way that there was no need to legalize homosexuality.
Like the member for Champlain (Mr. Matte), when this measure was introduced in the house, I wondered what could justify legalization of homosexuality. We were told time after time that homosexuals were ill. Instead of legalizing homosexuality, why not treat the sick?
29180-482J
Criminal Code
I fully support what has been said by the members of Champlain and of Charlevoix (Mr. Asselin) who suggest that clinics be established to take care of sick people instead of legalizing homosexuality.
Like the member for Champlain, I often wondered which associations1 and public bodies had made representations to the minister or to the government, in order to legalize such an illness.
On the contrary, I received many representations from associations in my constituency, asking me to emphasize their point of view in the house of commons by taking a vigorous stand against homosexuality. That is the reason why I am speaking now, in order to let the house know about the opinion of people in my constituency.
Since this measure has been under consid*-eration, I have not received a single representation from any homosexual or other person asking me to exert pressures on the government in order to have homosexuality legalized.
Therefore, I can state without any danger of being wrong, that I express the views of the great majority of the people in my riding when I say that it is not necessary to legalize homosexuality but that it is imperative to cure those afflicted with such a sinful disease.
It is not surprising that young people have doubts about this government when they see us spend our time in the House of Commons discussing subjects such as homosexuality, then they tend to lose confidence in the government. Mr. Speaker, we should not forget that it is not the opposition which is responsible for the time wasted discussing homosexuality but on the contrary this government which introduced the measure now under consideration.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
We want to gather all the forces of the opposition in order to prevent the legalization of homosexuality. I do not think that I am wrong when I say that several hon. members opposite would like to be free to do the same.


André-Gilles Fortin: That is true.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Within our party, Mr. Speaker,, we are free to vote according to our own conscience. Our leader has allowed us to vote-according to the dictates of our own conscience and I should like to hear the government members tell us the same thing, because we have proof to the contrary.

April 16, 1969
Criminal Code
In fact, the hon. member who spoke before me, just a while ago, wrote in a bulletin which he sent out to his electors some time ago that government members were not supposed to move amendments in committee because they had been given instructions to support the government.
Mr. Speaker, there is no need for me to say any more because I have already stated-and I say it again-that I see no need to legalize homosexuality.
Furthermore, I should like to encourage all those on the other side who still feel free, to join usi in order to prevent the passing of such a measure. Therefore I urge them to join our ranks and to object to the inclusion of clause 7 in the legislation and to vote for the amendment now under consideration.


Hugh John Flemming: Mr. Speaker, I rise simply for the purpose of indicating my support for the amendment which will delete this clause from Bill C-150. In my opinion clause 7 is repugnant to the majority of the people of Canada. Hon. members will remember that during the debate on second reading the minister tried to convince the house that he had a case. He did not convince me that he had a case. I fail to understand how he has been persuaded to sponsor this portion of the amendments to the Criminal Code. I fail to understand what pressure was put on him to do so. In my opinion, the minister has not the slightest argument in favour of this section of the bill.
I do not propose to argue this question from a legal point of view. The hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) has dealt with the legal points of this question and has argued beyond any successful contradiction that this provision should not be in the bill. There is no demand for it. The hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Asselin) argued most eloquently this afternoon against the inclusion of this portion of the bill. My hon. friend from Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Ricard) has just finished arguing the point and telling the house that he cannot bring himself to support this amendment.
All these arguments lead one to believe that there is no reason whatsoever for retaining this clause in the bill. The hon. member for York East (Mr. Otto) in his argument a few minutes ago made such a poor case that I doubt the wisdom of his even rising to his feet; he did not convince anybody. Nothing he said had the slightest effect on any person who had a clear mind on this subject.
IMr. Ricard.]
The minister is mistaken if he thinks he has enhanced his reputation by bringing forward this amendment to the Criminal Code with respect to homosexuality, bestiality, buggery, and all the rest of it, and attempting to get these things legalized by the house. He is tearing down his reputation. I say this to the minister because I have an interest in his reputation., We have been friends for a long time. He spends part of his time in my province. But he is making a mistake in allowing himself to be the instrument used to put this bill through the house, because obviously it will be passed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Hugh John Flemming: If the members of the government think they are improving their image, they are wrong also. Every member of the government and every member of the house is wrong, too, if he thinks he is enhancing his reputation by allowing this sort of bill to pass. If any member has any respect for the improvement of the general moral tone of the people of this country, he will vote in support of the amendment we are considering to eliminate clause 7. I accept the proposition that this clause will pass.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
It does not make me very happy to think that a group of 150 or more people could be persuaded that this measure is good for the people of Canada. It is beyond my comprehension how this could happen, and I do not know how they managed to do it. Neither do I know why they have done it, nor do I know of any reason why they should do it. The minister has never made a speech yet in this house in which he gave any good reason for making respectable and for legalizing the homosexual act. I say that the majority of the people of Canada will be disgusted when this bill is passed by the house in its present form.
I cannot possibly accept this bill. Probably everyone knows that I cannot accept it. However, in case there might be some doubt in someones' mind as to my attitude, I am on my feet at this minute to declare my support for the elimination of the clause which makes respectable and legal something the effect of which would be to destroy, cut down and reduce the morals of our country. This is not a good thing.
I said a minute ago that the minister did not give the house any excuse for bringing in this bill. I do not refer to the bill in its entirety but rather to this particular section.
April 16, 1969

Our side of the house, through our spokesman, asked that the bill be divided so that members could express their approval of those portions of the bill of which they approve and express their disapproval of those portions which are repugnant to them. That was refused. Will you tell, me, Mr. Speaker-and I am sure if you could, you would say that you cannot-why the government, in their lack of wisdom, did not consent to divide the bill.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: They put aspirins in the candy.


Hugh John Flemming: I cannot understand it and never will because I am convinced that there are many fine people supporting the government. How they ever were persuaded not to allow the bill to be split so that amendments of this nature could be voted upon is more than I will ever be able to understand. According to the hon. member for York East (Mr. Otto) the minister did not explain anything on second reading. He made no effort to do so. He would never be appointed a minister of justice in any government of mine, because he did a very poor job. Probably the hon. member who sits next to the curtain across the aisle could do somewhat better.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I hope we are looking at the right man.


Hugh John Flemming: I am looking at the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. Gibson).


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: I would prefer the
Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner).


Hugh John Flemming: That is where we differ, Mr. Speaker. As I said, the Minister of Justice failed to convince anyone that he had a case. He did not answer the question: What is the government going to do about the young people, the 16 year olds. They will make this act legal for consenting adults of 21 years and over. What about those who are twenty and a half years old, and those who are 19 years
Criminal Code old? The situation is ridiculous because, according to this bill an 18 year old boy will be liable to 14 years in the penitentiary while the 21 year old will go free.
Homosexuality will be made legal, as the government says, because it is being practised. This would also apply to murder because we have murder, rape, and armed robbery. According to that theory, all these acts should be made legal and respectable by an act of this parliament. I cannot see for the life of me how anyone can justify this bill in its present form. I realize it will be passed or the government would not present it. But I tell you that in my opinion this parliament will be known as the parliament which legalized homosexuality, and the minister will go down in history as the minister who brought in the bill to do it. That is what will appear in the history books. I hear an hon. member saying that they are willing to take the chance. But I am not willing to take the chance, and neither do I propose to do it. They are going to put the stamp of approval on homosexuality, sodomy and bestiality. The minister still has a chance to remove those objectionable features. If he does, no particular harm will be done to the administration of justice in this country, as everyone within sound of my voice knows.
These clauses are in the bill because someone said that the government has to put it through in its present form.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That is the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau).


Hugh John Flemming: I say to you that I will support the amendment to delete this clause because I think that is what the people of my constituency want me to do. Moreover, that is what I think the majority of the people of Canada want this government to do if they will only do it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It being six o'clock, this house stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, April 17, 1969