1969-04-18

[Stage Direction]
Seventeenth 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.]


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 41(2) I should like to table the statement released by the office of the Prime Minister on April 3, 1969 with regard to Canada's participation in NATO.
Perhaps while doing so I could call the attention of hon. members to the fact that the Notice of Motion on the participation by Canada, in NATO, which will be dealt with on Wednesday and Thursday of next week, is on the notice paper, and since that debate will refer at least in part to this particular release I suggest it might be helpful to hon. members if the text of the statement were made available as an appendix to Hansard.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreeable to hon. members?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: For text of press release, see Appendix.]



AIRPORTS


Mr. Russell C. Honey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional and Economic Expansion):: Pursuant to Standing Order
29180-486J
41(2) I should like to table a copy of the Higgins Report regarding the selection of an international airport site in Quebec. I might mention, Mr. Speaker, that a request for this report was contained in Notice of Motion No. 95 by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby. This tabling conforms also, of course, with that request.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Can he tell us about the status of the Air Canada dispute at the moment? What steps, if any, are being taken to persuade the parties to resume negotiations and prevent a strike which would undoubtedly cause serious inconvenience to thousands of Canadians?
I realize that the Minister of Labour may have pressing reasons for being away but I should like to ask whether, in particular, the Minister of Labour has been requested to return and take a hand in the settlement of this dispute before any strike takes place.


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Of course, Mr. Speaker, the Department of Labour has been involved at appropriate stages in attempts to settle the dispute and the Acting Minister of Labour has been assisting in every way he can.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Can the Prime Minister say whether the Minister of Labour himself will be returning to take charge of the dispute? I ask that particularly in view of the fact that the Prime Minister's intervention yesterday seemed to make what was a probable strike almost inevitable. I wonder whether the Prime Minister would make certain that he has the advice of the Minister of Labour with regard to this matter, particularly before making further interventions.
7682	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I wonder
whether the Leader of the Opposition is advising the government that we should have avoided the strike by accepting the demands of the union.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I should like to feel assured that the Minister of Labour would be at hand to take charge of this difficult situation.


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, on the same subject I should like to ask the Prime Minister the following question. In view of his statement yesterday that Air Canada was an independent crown corporation and that the government should not intervene in the negotiations, would the right hon. gentleman inform the house whether his question today, whether we-namely the government-should accept the union demands, and his statement yesterday coming down straightforwardly on management's side, is intended to assist in the settlement of the dispute, and whether he or some part of his government will try to get the parties together this week end to negotiate freely, as he suggested yesterday they should?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I suppose, Mr. Speaker, my answer was of the nature of the question by the leader of the New Democratic party. I think neither was intended to assist in solving the dispute. The dispute will be solved, if at all, by the parties negotiating directly.
What was the latter part of the question?


David Lewis: Yesterday the Prime Minister placed himself directly on management's side in this particular dispute by saying that management had been very generous and that the government would not have been as generous.
I am asking the Prime Minister whether he thinks that this kind of statement by the government-should accept the union demands, crown corporation can be helpful in settling the dispute; or will the government take the completely neutral position that it ought to be taking and get the parties together to settle this dispute themselves.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The government is taking a completely neutral position, Mr. Speaker.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. Has the government considered bringing in legislation similar to that now being brought in by the Labour government in the British House of Commons which will have the effect of preserving and protecting the public interest

DEBATES	April 18, 1969
against strikes that embarrass and stifle the economy. I am sure if the government does that my hon. friends to the left will support its action, and I make this suggestion in that spirit.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: As the right hon. gentleman knows, the task force has made certain recommendations in the area of strikes and services essential to the public. These recommendations are being examined by the government.


John George Diefenbaker: May I direct another question to the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. Because of the detrimental potential of strikes such as these would the Prime Minister consider bringing together in a strictly neutral attitude, which he advised the house today he has, representatives of the corporation and the unions and use the prestige of his office to prevent what would be a serious and catastrophic matter involving the welfare of the entire country?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker. I have not considered that.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: In view of the absence of the Minister of Labour, I ask the minister if he would consider calling upon the services of the Minister of Communications (Mr. Kierans) whose tact and skill in labour negotiations are now receiving national recognition?



LABOUR RELATIONS


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I should also like to ask the Prime Minister whether the government has given consideration to and reached any decision in connection with the recommendation of the task force on labour relations with regard to the establishment of a public interest disputes commission, dealing as it does with this type of problem.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the recommendations of the task force are being considered by the government.



AIR TRANSPORT


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Transport, or perhaps I should address it to
April 18. 1869

the Minister without Portfolio who acts in that capacity. Has the government given consideration to extending the franchise of Canadian Pacific Airlines to the Atlantic provinces so that there will be two main line carriers in that area, and the situations that are likely to take place within the next few days will not totally incapacitate the people of that area from getting around?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Transport Commission has been in touch with the other air lines. If requests are received from the other air lines to provide additional services the commission, whose primary responsibility is to serve the Canadian public, will, I am certain, give its consent to any reasonable requests for additional service to the public.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question. That is not exactly what I had in mind. I want to ask the minister whether consideration is being given by the Department of Transport to extending permanently the franchise of Canadian Pacific Airlines to the Atlantic region so that there will be two main carriers in the area and so that in the event of a strike on the part of one airline or the other, service will be maintained to the public.


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, the commission can only consider applications and, so far as I know, there is no application.


Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. Would he advise us what action the cabinet committee he mentioned yesterday has taken on this important matter?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it has established certain contingency plans for eventualities to do with matters such as the transportation of mail or, in urgent circumstances, the transportation of people.



CHARLOTTETOWN-MONTREAL JET SERVICE

Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Acting Minister of Transport. Will he assure the house that the planned early commencement of direct jet service from Charlottetown to Montreal will not be jeopardized or delayed by the announcement of policy with regard to
Inquiries of the Ministry regional carriers made the other day by the chairman of the transport commission. Also, could this proposed service be advanced in view the probable impending strike?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, I have been informed on this subject by the president of the commission, who has advised me that he made no statement which would jeopardize the actual proposal of Nordair and Eastern Provincial Airlines. I think the problem arose from the fact that the president of the Commission would not have been in favour of a merger. But they did not in fact propose a merger and therefore there was no statement that would jeopardize the service that has been referred to.



USE OF PRIVATE CARRIERS TO SERVE SMALLER CENTRES DURING AIR CANADA STRIKE

Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question1 to the Acting Minister of Transport. In view of the immediate urgency of the strike situation has the government any plans to have Air Canada drop regional service to smaller centres, particularly those in the Atlantic region, and have private carriers take over that passenger service?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, there are no specific plans of that kind.


Robert Muir: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In order to alleviate fears that exist in the Atlantic region and in smaller centres of Ontario would the acting minister or the Minister of Transport make a statement to the house to allay fears that we will lose the services of Air Canada in the Atlantic region.


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, the routes are determined by the air committee of the Canadian Transport Commission. Applications for routes come forward and are approved or not approved by the Commission. There is no directive by the government and no government policy that will remove Air Canada from the maritimes or from any route at the present time which is now being considered by the commission.


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: I wish to clarify the minister's statement to the effect

April 18, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry that if regional air carriers were desirous of providing additional service, that this would be considered. I wonder if the other side of the case will also be exercised whereby the minister, the department or the Transport Commission will ask regional carriers to operate services particularly in areas of important need? These will include parts of both western and eastern Canada.


James Armstrong Richardson: I think the initiative must come from the regional carriers. The commission would not stand in -the way of any reasonable request.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Are we to understand that neither the minister, his department or the Transport Commission- will be assessing the need independently and make such requests to these air carriers?


James Armstrong Richardson: As I indicated earlier, Mr. Speaker, the commission has been in touch with the air lines and in consultation with them, but the request will still have to come from the regional air lines for services which they wish to provide. If they do, the commission will want to grant any reasonable requests.



POSSIBLE FATIGUE FACTOR IN JET PILOT OPERATIONS

Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Minister of Transport. Since we have had assurance from the Prime Minister and others that other air lines will do their best where requested to take over during this emergency, will the minister make sure air line pilots, particularly jet pilots, a-re not required to spend long hours on duty in view of the great safety factor involved? I ask this question because of events that took place earlier this year concerning long hours that jet pilots were required to work on occasion, even on- regular runs. There is a high safety factor.


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member's point is well taken. I am certain the air lines themselves and the commission would want to be certain that the pilots do not work longer hours than they could reasonably undertake having regard to the safety of the travelling public.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: My question, Mr. Speaker, is directed to the Prime Minister. Some weeks ago he indicated the government was studying the proposed A.B.M. Safeguard system suggested by President Nixon. The Prime Minister indicated at that time that he was going to see whether the government should condemn the proposal or co-operate. I ask the Prime Minister if he has reached any conclusion with respect to this matter.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We have not reached any conclusion yet, Mr. Speaker, but it seems the debate is going on well in the United States without us.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I am not concerned about the debate in the United States, Mr. Speaker. I am concerned about Canada's implications. I ask the Prime Minister if there have been any discussions at any level of government regarding the possibility of co-operation with respect to the A.B.M. system and NORAD. Also is Canada seeking any contracts for the construction of material to be used in the A.B.M. system?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I do not know the answer to that, Mr. Speaker. I know there is a question on the order paper along these lines which will be answered in due course.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: As a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, when the government will make its statement to the house or issue a white paper on North American defence could the Prime Minister indicate whether there will be a clear statement with respect to Canada's position on the A.B.M. question?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I hope so, Mr. Speaker.



PUBLIC SERVICE


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abilibi):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister.
In view of the fact that he stated recently that the bill on official languages might be introduced and studied within a few weeks, could the Prime Minister assure the house and federal civil servants that the promised 7
April 18, 1969

per cent bonus will be granted to bilingual civil servants before the languages bill is discussed in the house.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the bill in question has nothing to do with the 7 per cent bonus. Therefore, I do not see the connection between the two matters as implied by the hon. member.



REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT


Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Col-chesler North):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Is the department giving consideration to closing out its maritime operations that are located at Amherst, Nova Scotia?


Mr. Speaker:: I doubt whether this is a question that can be asked at this time. The hon. member may wish to have the matter debated at the time of adjournment.


Robert Carman Coates: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, this is a very urgent matter so far as I am concerned. It is one that involves all three maritime provinces because the operations that are located at Amherst are involved in the plans that have been produced by the federal government to carry out its work in the Atlantic provinces.


Mr. Speaker:: I understand the argument submitted by the hon. member, but I still feel that it is the type of situation that can best be discussed at the time of adjournment.



AGRICULTURE


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Acting Minister of Agriculture. Can he assure the house that the government will approve some plan at a very early date to stabilize the potato industry in Prince Edward Island, as requested by a resolution of the legislature of that province?


Hon. Olio E. Lang (Acting Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to bring this question to the attention of the minister on his return.
Inquiries of the Ministry INDUSTRY



DEVCO-COMPULSORY RETIREMENT OF MINERS-TREASURY BOARD APPROVAL

David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion if he can inform the house whether there was a by-law of Devco about compulsory early retirement of employees, and whether that by-law was approved by Treasury Board yesterday, as was suggested by the minister the other day?


Russell Clayton Honey: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform the hon. member there was such a by-law enacted in accordance with the statute and that approval was given yesterday by the Treasury Board.


David Lewis: As a supplementary question, if the approval for this plan was given only yesterday would the parliamentary secretary inform the house, if he has the information now, or undertake to obtain it, under what authority the corporation sent notices to the employees some weeks ago telling them that they were subject to this compulsory retirement, when the by-law had not been before the Treasury Board and approved?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have the impression that the hon. member is asking for a legal interpretation.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape-Breton-Easl Richmond):: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for York South is not asking for a legal interpretation. It is just a followup to a statement made by the parliamentary secretary last night in respect of information sent to the retiring employees, and I might say, Mr. Speaker, in this respect-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member now seems to be presenting an argument. This is not a point of order. He may have a supplementary question and I have no objection to that.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I will put a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. Will he request the crown company to withdraw the compulsory aspect of its preretirement leave plan? Mr. Speaker, I will put a separate question to the Prime Minister. Does he support this form of discrimination?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
April 18, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I worded my question badly. I was not asking for any legal opinion. I was asking the Parliamentary Secretary whether he could tell the house under what authority the corporation sent out the notices, and whether authority had been sought from the minister, the government or the Treasury Board before those notices went out?


Russell Clayton Honey: Mr. Speaker, the notices to which my hon. friend refers were in fact letters to the employees in question advising them of the proposed plans. It was I think evident from reading the letters that this was contingent upon approval of Treasury Board. They were sent as a matter of courtesy only, so that the best possible notice could be given the employees of the intention of Dev-co. There is no statutory or other requirement that such notice be given; it is entirely a matter of courtesy.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not know how the rules will permit me to go about informing the minister, the Prime Minister and the parliamentary secretary that the information they are now giving the house is not in accord with the facts. All they need do is read the letter put out by Devco-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Prince Albert.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order regarding information given to the house by the government about letters concerning employees of the Devco corporation dated March 26 in which the statement is made that the pre-retirement leave question has been approved by the government. This is a complete contradiction to the facts, and I once again ask the Prime Minister to stop this discrimination.



WHEAT-SUPPORT PRICE AND TWO-PRICE SYSTEM

John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Acting Minister of Agriculture. In view of the statement he made in Saskatoon that farmers need a strong voice to plead their case I should like to know what the voice is of the Acting Minister of Agriculture in connection with the request of the government of Saskatchewan and the legislature for a support price on export wheat and a two-price

system. In view of his statement in Saskatoon that it needs a strong man to speak out for western farmers will the minister now let the house know what the situation is.


Otto Emil Lang: I assume the minister knows the position in which I find myself now is that my voice is exercised in consultation with my colleagues and when there is government policy to be announced it will be announced.


John George Diefenbaker: I apologize for accepting his own view, that his was a strong voice.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. Charles H. Thomas (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, but in the minister's absence I should like to direct it to the Prime Minister. Since the latest D.B.S. figures show that unemployment again increased in the Atlantic area, that the number of employed people decreased during the month of March and that 10.8 per cent of the labour force in the Atlantic area is now unemployed, what steps has the government taken to alleviate this critical situation in the Atlantic area?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It would seem that the hon. member has restated a question asked in about the same terms yesterday.


Charles Humbert Thomas: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might rephrase the question. Can the Prime Minister give the house any indication as to when the industrial incentive legislation as announced in Halifax Wednesday night by the Deputy Minister of Regional Economic Expansion will be introduced in the house.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The member might wish to add to his statistics that since last June the unemployment figures have fallen from 5.4 per cent to 4.2 per cent.


Howard Russell MacEwan: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the Prime Minister aware-


Mr. Forresiall:: You don't care about it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Has the hon. member a supplementary?


Howard Russell MacEwan: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether the
April 18, 1969



Prime Minister is aware that the unemployment rate in the Atlantic area has risen since-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Vaneouver-Kingsway.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for either the Prime Minister or the government house leader. In view of the fact that it is utterly impossible to direct any question on the matter of housing before next Tuesday, although the minister is supposed to be here, and perhaps not even next Tuesday-and even then it would only be directed to the half of the minister dealing with housing-will the government give consideration to the question of housing by appointing a whole minister to look after it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member's question is only half in order.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I have a
supplementary-


Mr. Speaker:: Half a supplementary?


Malcolm MacInnis: If the minister in charge of housing is to be away periodically may I ask whether the government will please designate somebody who is supposed to look after our questions in this regard.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might point out to the hon. member that the Minister without Portfolio from Manitoba is prepared to answer questions about that department. If the hon. lady is concerned about a particular question she might give notice of it.


Malcolm MacInnis: I certainly am if I could ask it because I had it ready for today. I shall direct it to the Minister without Portfolio. In view of the sharp rise in the first quarter profits of leading lumber producers in British Columbia, coupled with the sharp increase over the past year in the price of lumber and other building supplies, will the minister urge upon the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs the need for action to roll back the price of such building materials needed to meet the housing shortage.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's question is rather in the form of a
Inquiries of the Ministry representation. She can assume it has been noted.


Malcolm MacInnis: Will he himself undertake to discuss with these British Columbia lumber firms the need for restraint in the matter of the prices of their products to keep down inflation?



NATIONAL PARKS


Mr. Rene Maiie (Champlain):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Could he tell us whether the Quebec government opposed the sale to the federal government of land owned by the Quebec Seminary?


Mr. Speaker:: The question should be put on the order paper or discussed at the time of adjournment, should the hon. member prefer that.



INQUIRY AS TO NINETY-NINE YEAR LEASE

Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In relation to the minister's reply to my question yesterday concerning the leasing of lands by a provincial government for the establishment of national parks, can the minister say whether a 99-year lease of land will be acceptable from any province.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am not sure whether the question is one of urgency. The hon. member might place it on the order paper.


Robert Simpson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege regarding Your Honour's suggestion that my question should be placed on the order paper. I realize I must accept your suggestion but it seems quite evident that questions which are not very urgent and are placed on the order paper remain there for some time. I am still waiting for an answer to a question I placed on the order paper on January 29.


Mr. Speaker:: I might suggest to the hon. member that if he thinks it is taking too long to get the reply to which he is entitled he can always give the Chair notice of his intention

April 18. 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry to debate the matter at the time of adjournment. This provision is really a protection for hon. members.



TRANSPORT


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancasier):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Minister of Transport. Will the minister make a clear and definite statement with regard to the government's intention in respect of Bill C-182 regarding the Maritime Freight Rates Act to alleviate the fears of truckers and shippers in that area. I ask the question because the Minister of Transport along with six other ministers is away again on a day when he should be here evidently with the approval of the Prime Minister.
Kon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council): All the departments in question are represented here today.


Thomas Miller Bell: Not very well.


An hon. Member:: Half represented.



NATIONAL CAPITAL


Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question which I intended to direct to the minister who reports on National Capital matters. I do not see him in the house. Perhaps I might be allowed to address this question to the Prime Minister. What consideration is being given to implementation of the policy endorsed by the last parliament which called for the establishment of a parliamentary committee to deal with National Capital matters?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: This is not a day when this department is to answer questions in the house, Mr. Speaker.



FINANCE


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister without Portfolio acting on behalf of the minister in charge of housing. In view of the sudden and astronomical rise in the price of wood used as building material, will the government give consideration to eliminating the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.



DEFENCE PRODUCTION


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, my question is not of earthshaking urgency, but I should like to ask the Minister of National Defence, in light of the very great concern and interest, whether he could indicate briefly to the house the degree of satisfaction there has been from the sea trials of the Canadian hydrofoil, the Bras d'Or?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am not sure the question as asked has really the degree of urgency that would qualify it as a question acceptable at this time.



AIR CANADA


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister said that a committee of cabinet is embarked on contingency planning in the event that unfortunately a strike should take place in Air Canada.
In view of the fact that a great many people across Canada are concerned about the shipment of perishable commodities, can the Prime Minister indicate who is the chairman of that committee and to whom representations should be made in the event people run into serious problems in respect of the shipment of those commodities?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, representations should not be made to the chairman of the committee, but rather to the Minister of Transport.



INCOME TAX


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance I should like to direct my question to the President of the Privy Council. When does the government intend to bring forward legislation regarding the so-called social development tax? Does the government consider it appropriate to collect this tax indefinitely without parliamentary authorization, or is it considering the abandonment of the tax?
April 18, 1969


Donald Stovel Macdonald: No, Mr. Speaker. I anticipate that the bill will probably be put before the house within the next two or three weeks. There are very elaborate taxation provisions in respect of life insurance companies which require a great deal of effort on the part of draftsmen.



NATIONAL REVENUE


Mr. Louis-Roland Comeau (South Western Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question I have asked on two other occasions. I asked the question in French on those occasions and have been trying to get an answer since February. Perhaps I should now ask it in English. How many customs offices in Nova Scotia, particularly in the Southwestern part, are to be closed? I was not able to get an answer earlier. That is the reason I ask this question again.


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I was certainly not in the house when those questions were asked in French, because I understand French a little better than English.

However, I can inform the hon. member that there are supposed to be 69 customs offices closed in Canada. A decision has been made in respect of only 15 of these. Before they are closed we will have discussions with every member of constituencies in which these customs ports exist.



NATIONAL PARKS


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, now that the government has decided to alter the land tenure principle of national parks to meet the special circumstances of the Quebec Civil Code, will the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development give the same consideration to the special circumstances regarding western parks, particularly in those areas where alienation took place prior to 1930?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: I do not
Inquiries of the Ministry know, Mr. Speaker. I will consider the question asked by the hon. member. The Code Napoleon applies in the province of Quebec and if Manitoba wants to adopt it, the proposal will be considered.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.



FISHERIES


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Defence Production who, I presume, is acting on behalf of the Minister of Fisheries, in his absence. Has the minister met with representatives of the fishing industry to iron out some of the difficulties which have arisen as a result of the implementation of the government's program of aid to the industry, and what was the outcome of these discussions?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Supply and Services):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, there has been a series of meetings. I believe I revealed that there was a meeting on Monday with Newfoundland representatives. There have also been conversations with representatives from the maritime provinces, and representatives from the department have been in the maritime provinces for personal consultations. The mechanics of this scheme have virtually been completed now and we are hopeful that the details can be disclosed some time during the coming week.



REQUEST FOR ANNOUNCEMENT OF SALT FISH POLICY

Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, can the minister tell the house whether a date has been set by the government to announce the new salt fish policy and, more particularly, the date for the establishment of the salt fish marketing board as suggested by the Minister of Finance?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: No, Mr. Speaker; no specific date has been set. Again, as with the fresh fish industry, there are some details of the mechanics which have to be discussed with the fishermen and the trade. These discussions are taking place at maximum speed. The objective is again to make an announcement, hopefully within the next week or so.
7690	COMMONS DEBATES	April 18, 1969
Criminal Code



AIR CANADA


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address my question to the Minister without Portfolio from Winnipeg in his capacity as Acting Minister of Transport. I asked a question of the Minister of Transport two days ago concerning the steps being taken by the government to make sure that the employees affected by the transfer of the Air Canada base at Winnipeg to Northwest Industries will not be either unemployed or forced to accept lower wages than they have been paid by Air Canada. The minister said he hoped to be able to give me that information in a couple of days and I am wondering whether it is now available?


James Armstrong Richardson: No, Mr. Speaker. As the hon. member has pointed out, the question was asked only two days ago. It is unnecessary to point out to the hon. member that Air Canada has had other matters to think of in the last two days. There is no further information relating to his question at this time.
[DOT] (11:50 a.m.)



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
'The house resumed consideration of 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, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. And the motion of Mr. Laprise:
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 in clause 7 paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of the proposed new section 149A.
Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, when the house adjourned last night, I was explaining why I had introduced amendment No. 6, to delete from clause 7 of Bill C-150 
paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of the proposed new section 149A of the Criminal Code.
The amendment to the Criminal Code would thus read as follows:
"149A. (1) Sections 147 and 149 do not apply to any act committed in private between
(a) a husband and his wife.
Mr. Speaker, my purpose is to determine and attempt to prevent the danger that could stem from the amendment to the Criminal Code before us.
Many people in Quebec and across Canada have been and still are wondering what the government is aiming at with such drastic changes in the Criminal Code, particularly on the matter of sexuality.
I have here an editorial written by Roger Bruneau, in the Quebec newspaper L'Action, of December 26, 1967, at the time when our present Prime Minister, then Minister of Justice, introduced the first amendment to the Criminal Code, now before us.
Here is what Roger Bruneau had to say on the subject, and I quote:
Other aspects of the Trudeau bill are shocking public opinion, such as the legalization of homosexuality between consenting adults. On this subject, Mr. Trudeau has stated that the state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation. We could also wonder whether the "present" state has any business in the federal legislative assemblies. The fact is that Ottawa is following closely the example given by Great Britain on legal morality. In London, they have abolished the death penalty, and they have legalized the sale of contraceptives, homosexuality, abortion, etc.
For the sake of the public interest and to protect itself against the excesses of the present government, the Canadian people must react energetically to make Ottawa understand that they will not let anything go by without being first consulted. It is too bad if the Pearson Liberal government finds itself in an embarrassing situation, but public interest has priority over that of the party; either the bill is withdrawn, or members of parliament are allowed to vote freely on that matter, or the opposition parties will have to unite and overthrow the government when a confidence motion is introduced on that bill.
Mr. Speaker, that is the opinion of an editor who speaks for and to his readers.
At this stage of the debate, Mr. Speaker, I should like to deal with the manner in which the house should act when it is time to vote on the amendments relating to clause 7 as well as clause 18 of the bill now before us.
Now, I want to quote what the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) said in the house on January 23, 1969, as recorded on page 4718 of Hansard. I quote:
Some hon. members have had to struggle with themselves to accept this bill. Some have had to
April 18, 1969

struggle mightily because it deals with fundamental concepts. I understand this, and the Prime Minister and members of the government understand it. I hope nothing I say today or in the later stages of this bill will give any member any impression other than that I deeply respect the consciences and private convictions of all hon. members.
Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, it means quite simply that the government members are compelled to vote unanimously for any government proposal, especially in the case of Bill C-150.
On the following page, in the first column, the minister made it quite clear, and I quote:
I want to say, too, that the government fully endorses this bill.
Mr. Speaker, this means that the members are compelled to vote as the cabinet says. This is a government bill and the back-benchers know that they must comply with the instructions of the cabinet.
The quotation continues as follows:
It bears the government stamp and will be supported by the government.
This is the third statement in the same paragraph which clearly proves that the government does not give any choice to the members of its party. And the quotation goes on:
We feel bound to the bill as the principal item of social reform in this session of Parliament.
Mr. Speaker, I wonder how clauses 7 or 18 can improve our social legislation.
As my colleagues from Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) and Portneuf (Mr. Godin) pointed out yesterday, there are many other bills to be passed and many other reforms to be made to our social system so that our fellow-citizens may have better living conditions thanks to the opportunities Canada can offer them.
Canada is going through a sexual crisis the causes of which should be looked into. In some cases, for instance, young people must live in abnormal conditions due to inadequate housing. Our recreational associations should be improved in a way to insure the intellectual and physical training of the young. Children and teenagers have no other place to play than the street and the bars we find there.
In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, the government should, if necessary, get busy in conjunction with other provincial governments to reform our social laws.
The minister continues and I quote:
It is identified with our Prime Minister and party.
Criminal Code
Here is another indication that these members must follow party policy.
Most ironically, he says in the same paragraph:
We believe it has been tested favourably with the people of Canada and has met the approval of the people in a general election.
[DOT] (12 noon)
Mr. Speaker, that is the height of irony. Never, as far as I know, during the last election campaign, has the present government or the Liberal party requested a free hand from the Canadian people to legalize homosexuality or abortion.
If the Liberal party had, through a referendum, consulted the Canadian people who in turn had expressed their views on as clear a subject as the bill under consideration, then we could know exactly what the Canadian people think of the government's reform proposals.
Before going too far in that respect, the government should have held a referendum, and in so doing allow the Canadian people to have their say on the matter if it will not permit hon. members on the government side to decide according to their conscience when that bill is voted on.
Mr. Speaker, if such a referendum were held, I think the government would be in a bad situation and would have trouble getting some clauses of Bill C-150 adopted. It is willing to examine everything the English do in Great Britain, and as Mr. Roger Bruneau wrote in an editorial, we try to ape everything they do, perhaps because we think they are more civilized than we are and we hope to improve ourselves by imitating them.
Before concluding, I would like to quote some excerpts from another lead article written by Mr. Raymond Lacoste, a Parisian journalist, at the time homosexuality was legalized in England. Here is what he said:
The debates enlightened us on the seriousness of the evil. 50 to 60 million unnatural acts are committed every year. The number of sexual crimes which amounted to 5,000 a year in 1939, had reached 20,000 in 1964; in the same period, acts of violence increased from 2,900 to 23,470, and the total number of criminal acts, from 303 000 to more than a million a year. But in the case' of homosexuals, the legislation was obviously not enforced since only 1,300 actions and less than a hundred convictions were recorded. Judges were rather lenient though policemen did not mind arresting very honourable gentlemen (such as the former leader of the Liberal party caught in a street urinal in Leicester Square, and who had the good idea of dying of apoplexy the day before his trial.)

April 18. 1969
Criminal Code
A Tory member, Sir Cyril Osborne, said: "I have had enough of this democracy which is too lenient with prostitutes, pimps and procurers."
An honest Labour member, Mr. Tommey, added:
I protest against the tone of alleged intellectual superiority adopted by the supporters of the bill. What those people are in fact asking us is to allow male prostitution, when a few years ago parliament dealt severely with female prostitution and waged war against call-girls. But, today, by a strange aberration of mind, British legislators are being more indulgent for unnatural acts than for acts which, though they are in a way sinful, are after all natural.
Raymond Lacoste continues in a kind of humorous vein that draws tears rather than smiles:
We were entertained during the debates with "serious" considerations. Needless to say that when the vote was taken, the handsome young men whose eyes were painted with Kohol and who were huddled up in the galleries burst into applause so great was their joy!
The lawyers of the dear boys put up all kinds of arguments ... Mr. Wood seriously asserted that homosexuality does not entail the danger of illegitimate children! And what is the use of sending an uranist to prison? Is it not like sentencing Don Juan to a few years in a harem?
Mr. Speaker, these few remarks clearly show that the amendment to the Criminal Code that we want to bring in involves all kinds of dangers and may lay this government or even Canada open to ridicule, which we would bitterly regret in the next few years.
It is my opinion, Mr. Speaker, that we should give special consideration to amendment No. 6, since it purports to amend sections 147 and 149 only, which now read as follows:
147. Every one who commits buggery or bestiality is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for fourteen years.
149. Every one who commits and act of gross indecency with another person is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for five years.
Mr. Speaker, the amendment which I move would have the effect of deleting paragraph (b) which reads as follows:
(b) any two persons, each of whom is twenty-one years or more of age,
That would mean that section 149A would apply only to husband and wife. The amendment should therefore be considered seriously and I would be glad to hear the comments of hon. members on that matter.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I shall not be here next week when the vote on the bill before the house takes place. I want to make it clear at once that with the inclusion of the homosexu-
[Mr. Laprise.l
al clauses and the free-love abortion clauses I would be voting against the bill despite the fact that there are many of its provisions which deserve my support and would otherwise receive it.
I wish to explain at once that the reason for my absence, and I trust it will be regarded as a reasonable excuse. The legislature of Saskatchewan will on Tuesday be unveiling a bronze sculpture of me. I tried to get into that institution for a period of four years on two occasions. Now I am to become permanently included in it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: I am glad hon. members agree that my absence is excusable in the circumstances.
I wish to say I have been impressed by the arguments advanced and by the speeches made during the course of the debate. My hon. friend, the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams), and those associated with him have placed their views before us, as have hon. members supporting the government and those speaking for other parties, in a reasonable and responsible manner.
These are subjects which naturally arouse strong emotional opinions. On the one hand there are those who found their case on sociological advance-the new world. It certainly is not a just society that these things will bring about but a hard society. There is no widespread request that these matters should receive attention from parliament. Last year, I believe on December 13, I spoke and pointed out that it was a strange commentary on the attitude of the present administration that with great economic problems facing the nation the government seemed irrevocable in its determination to bring in these two items.
It is interesting to read the arguments advanced yesterday by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner). He has argued better cases. I doubt that he ever went through a more trying or introspective examination than when he made his speech yesterday. Indeed, as I read it I was reminded of the schoolmen in the middle ages who, incidentally, brought about the first student riots. Students refused to attend lectures and rioted because so much time was devoted to such metaphysical arguments as the number of angels who could occupy the head of a pin. The arguments advanced yesterday by the hon. gentleman bore a strange and peculiar resemblance to some of the arguments that were advanced by the schoolmen.
April 18, 1969

[DOT] (12:10 p.m.)
I do not intend to speak at length today, but as a brother member of the bar of Ontario and as a member of Grays Inn, of which I am honoured to be an honorary bencher, I can only say that it is with deep concern that I view a young member of this house with a distinguished past and, I hope, a distinguished future advancing the arguments he adduced yesterday. It must have been difficult, but after all in the shadows stands the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) keeping watch upon his flock. He insisted on this. We endeavoured to make it possible for a reasonable vote to be taken in the house, making allowances for the differences we naturally have on a matter that has caused concern to theologians and philosophers throughout the years right from the time of Machiavelli who, incidentally, the Prime Minister said some months ago was his favourite politician.
It is of interest that we now see something of what is happening under the new committee system which was going to be the rebirth of parliament. Those of us who have been here for many long years will always recognize that changes must be made. The new committee system received its baptism in the presentation of this bill to a committee of the house. Some amendments were permitted. But when it came to homosexuality and abortion the government's answer, in effect, was: "So far, no farther; don't touch".
Why this solicitude for these matters to be legalized? The minister says that they are not legalized but that from now on they will not be subject to penalty, even though they may still be immoral-if I understood the argument he advanced yesterday. We now know why it was that the government refused to divide the bill. The steamroller was at work. The government said: "We care not what amendments you may make in regard to the other sections but when it comes to homosexuality and abortion the government stands firm."
I wonder what was the argument behind it. I have not yet been able to find out. Canadians have asked for action on other matters that effect the lives of individuals across the nation, but these matters are still in the hands of task forces or snoop groups. We have never had a government in the history of Canada that has sat on so many things, and I say that in the fullest sense of the word. Ministers divide on everything else but not on homosexuality and abortion. Is this not interesting?
Criminal Code
On NATO they travel about the country adopting various attitudes. The latest example is a press release by the Department of the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier), and I had hoped that he would be here today. Recently he was out west, and I hope he comes back, but one more trip out west and there will be no Liberals elected next time. The Secretary of State came out with a classic. I should like to refer to a press release issued by the National Museums of Canada on the subject of aboriginal art. They did not know anything about aboriginal art until they got into the question of abortion-a classic analogy. The press release states that there is going to be a magnificent exhibition of Canadian aboriginal art at the Musee de l'Homme in Paris on March 25, and here is the last paragraph:
-Canada will be represented by an official party headed by Secretary of State Gerard Pelletier who will open the exhibition. The party will include both Canadian and French cabinet ministers.
What nonsense is this! Is this the new birth of biculturalism in Canada? There is no mistaking what it means. It says that Canada will be represented by an official party, and the party will consist of those I have stated. These ministers can disagree about anything else. They can bring forth the most unusual ebullitions, but their attitude is, "Don't monkey with the government's intention to legalize homosexuality and abortion."
As soon as this matter came before the house the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) asked for a free vote. There was a free vote in this party. One government member voted against the measure. The government said: "Either you pass this measure, including these two items, or else." This government has lost the confidence of parliament and you know, Mr. Speaker, what will be the consequences of that.
Then the government said: "Wait till you get into committee". When the matter came to the committee I said that you could not incorporate the United States system by superimposing it on the parliamentary system in the British tradition. Under our tradition the government requires the support of a majority in the house or in committee, as the case may be. But I was told that there was going to be a new day, that parliament was going to be made to work. What has the government done for the people of Canada since December 13 last?


Robert Muir: Make them all homos.

April 18, 1969
Criminal Code


John George Diefenbaker: Well, that observation indicates that thought has been given. But what has the government done? Every day the government has been imposing illegal taxation. A reasonable time after this imposition a budget was permitted. Nevertheless the government has been extracting money from the people of Canada illegally, by extortion. The matter has not been brought before parliament and it ought to be within the course of the next few days or the next few weeks. No action has been taken on a vital matter affecting the Canadian people. Oh no. We have rising costs, the highest cost of living in history, high interest rates, high taxation and the highest government expenditures ever, but the government says: we will not pay any attention to those things; we want to legalize homosexuality; that is our ideal.
[DOT] (12:20 p.m.)
I am sorry I missed the speech the Minister of Justice delivered yesterday, because it must have been an example to all those listening of obvious hair-splitting. What kind of argument was it? Why is there this unearthly haste to bring in this measure? Why is there this unfathomable haste? This is your solution, is it? Is this your elixir for the people of Canada? Do you say that after these things are done happy days will be here again?
When the government said that these matters were to be discussed in the committee they said that members would be free to do as they pleased. The private member was to have new opportunities. I agree that the backbencher does not have fair opportunities, but he was to have them in this committee. I said that I could see how these committees would operate. The hon. member for York East (Mr. Otto) let the cat out of the bag, but he did not deal with the instructions that were received. It was interesting to hear that Liberal members in committee had received instructions from the government. The only one who denied in the house that there had been any such instruction was the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald). No one would suggest that the hon. member for York East would manufacture a story. Some may say he manufactured it but, if so, I can only say he was most prescient in doing so. Hon. members over there all stick together. They know where they stand. United we stand, divided we fall. Therefore they stand together.
They said the new rules would bring tremendous advantages. They would give committees of parliament new powers. I am citing

only what took place. The view was expressed that because of the complexity of legislation it was impossible to ensure proper and careful study of bills, clause by clause, in the House of Commons. I said what was being done would weaken parliament and the House of Commons. The government gave assurances1 that every opportunity would be given to private members to express their views in committee and to have those views translated into recommendations for amendment when committees reported back to the house. What a sham! They said that the United States system-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I hesitate to interrupt the right hon. gentleman but our Standing Orders provide that debate shall be strictly limited to the amendment before the house. In view of the right hon. gentleman's statement earlier that he would be absent next week, the house may feel disposed to allow him to go beyond the scope of the particular amendment. Perhaps the house feels so disposed, but I feel that we should deal with the subject matter of the bill.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I never transgress. I thought there was general agreement when I began for me to make my remarks. I have always found the house reasonable. I will conclude the latter part of my remarks very shortly.
The committee sat. What did it bring in? Here we have a report from a committee that was unbiased, non-partisan, non-political. This is the report of a committee, some of whose members had a whip held over them. The effectiveness of our committee system under the new rules must be measured in the light of what took place in this instance.


An hon. Member:: Not so.


John George Diefenbaker: Liberal members have cited what happens in the United States, but the United States system is different. No member of Congress, no matter what his political faith, has any responsibility to the President of the United States. Many years ago Woodrow Wilson said in this regard that the rules of the United States Congress are framed in such a way as to put all business under committee management. There is one principle that runs through all their committee proceedings, and which is never abrogated and always observed, that the committees shall rule without let or hindrance. In this instance the committee of the house did not meet without let or hindrance. The members supporting the government went there and
April 18, 1969

did not mind changes in certain clauses, but the clause dealing with the particular matter now before us was untouchable.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I hesitate to interrupt the right hon. gentleman again but his time has expired. Is there unanimous consent for him to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John George Diefenbaker: I have always found the house reasonable. I pointed out that the hopes for our committee system under the new rules were false.


An hon. Member:: You are away out in left field.


John George Diefenbaker: You cannot apply the United States system in Canada. What did the Prime Minister do? After we had gone through the debate on proposed Standing Order 16A what did he say? He said that we have a new set of rules and that the trap had been set. The opposition fell into the trap. I say the government trapped parliament. This committee system will not work.
I was particularly impressed with the remark of a Creditiste member the other day who said there is no longer debate in the house. Except for the participation of the Minister of Justice and a few other members generally speaking debate is down. There is no cross-fire of opinion. A bill comes in, is discussed on second reading and goes to a committee which carries out the will of the government. What preposterous nonsense it is to say that under this new system parliament will be made more effective. The new system has done nothing to meet the problems of Canada since December last. One can only say that the time has come to revise the revision of the rules.
Woodrow Wilson said that committees in the United States are all-powerful. Are our committees all-powerful? One of our committees brought in a recommendation dealing with the railway in Newfoundland and the government ignored it. When the matter was raised in the house the President of the Privy Council, said that the government had no power to implement that recommendation. As anticipated, our committees have become emasculated. Their ineffectiveness in discussing matters of importance has come about exactly as predicted.
[DOT] (12:30 p.m.)
By this time, sir, you will have concluded that I am opposed not only to the homosexual
Criminal Code
but also the abortion clauses. I can understand the difference of opinion on these matters. There was a wide difference of opinion on this side of the house. We had a free vote. If everyone thinks alike, nobody thinks. I wonder how that rule would apply to the government the way they all lined up.


An hon. Member:: I wonder how it will apply to you when the vote is taken.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry this legislation is; before us. We live in an age that is becoming more and more permissive. Some say there is no God, that each man should be able to live his own life as he wills as long as he does so in private. I do not find any support for that philosophy in the scriptures. The Judaeo-Christian concept in the Old Testament is the foundation of our religion.
The government is saying to the young people of this country; You are in a new age, you are over 21. A lad asked me how the new law on homosexuality would work and I said, "You will have to consult the government." Instead of giving young Canada an expression of hope and idealism, the government brings in these two matters. What do they expect from young people? I am not here in an endeavour to preach because I could not do so if I tried, but surely what this country needs is a clarion call from the government in favour of the maintenance of family life with a little more emphasis on responsibilities rather than rights.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: Instead, the government is condemning today's young people. They know far more than we ever knew. With the exception of a small hard core comprising not more than one in 20, they have ideals. They want to live a free life. We are saying to them; "We will give you permissive legislation, we will give you freedom to do these things."
The Minister of Justice in his metaphysical discussion yesterday tried to distinguish between doing a thing and being a person who would do that thing. Freedom is not the right to do wrong. Freedom is the right to be wrong. The government is saying it knows this is not proper. Scripture says it is not proper. Yet it is attempting to give a freedom which will do nothing to elevate Canada or Canadians.
I pleaded with the government before and I do so once more; do not have parliament pass

April 18, 1969
Criminal Code
a bill that legalizes these two acts. The result can only be that young Canadians will say the parliament of Canada approves of homosexuality and abortion. I know there is no use arguing because the Prime Minister has said: "Line up."


An hon. Member:: And be shot.


John George Diefenbaker: I do not know whether it is ju-jitsu, but the government has its members under control. It twists them. I have talked to a number of them. I will never at any time repeat their names even by suggestion. Do not think they have not got in their hearts a deep sense of concern over this legislation, but when the government speaks there is only one stand that can be taken by those supporting it. Surely the government of Canada could have done something to give new hope to young Canadians rather than this legislation.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I am sure every hon. member of this house and every person in the galleries agrees there is no member of parliament to whom one listens with more pleasure than one does to the right hon. gentleman. I have disagreed with the right hon. gentleman's political ideas, but I have for many years admired him immensely for his concern about civil liberty and individual rights in our society. When he held the high office of Prime Minister of this country, one of the great accomplishments of the right hon. gentleman was to place on the statute books of Canada a Bill of Rights. This has been widely distributed to the children of this country and has done them a great deal of good.
I feel the same respect and admiration which everyone does, but I say to the right hon. gentleman that his remarks today are a complete contradiction and negation of the great work he has done in the field of civil liberty and individual rights. The right hon. gentleman is the most eloquent spokesman' for those who hold the views he has expressed to show the basic philosophy behind those views. I say to him with the respect I have already expressed that that philosophy is simply out of date. It simply has no relevance to modern society.
In order to support that antediluvian philosophy one has to misrepresent what the law says. I suggest to the right hon. gentleman that is not the way an exchange of ideas can be fruitful or useful. The right hon. gentleman was simply utterly and completely wrong when he said that the amendments to

the Criminal Code on the subject we are discussing will say to the young people of Canada: Parliament says these things axe right. Parliament is saying nothing of the sort.
[DOT] (12:40 p.m.)


John George Diefenbaker: That is just whait it will say.


David Lewis: It will say nothing of the sort unless 'the right hon. gentleman with his eloquence persists in misrepresenting what the law in fact says and persuades the young people of Canada otherwise. A great spokesman for civil liberty and honesty such as the right hon. gentleman ought not to indulge in that kind of thing.
The sections which proclaim that homosexuality is an evil act, an undesirable act, remain in the Criminal Code. No one who is really dealing with the subject in the kind of objective, honest way in which we were asked to deal with it can suggest that parliament is saying anything other than that this unfortunate deviation from normal human behaviour is an undesirable thing.
What is being suggested in this amendment, what the minister and the majority in this parliament are saying, is that when two adults who are assumed to have enough judgment to understand situations suffer from this kind of emotional or mental illness, or whatever it may be, and engage in it in private without impinging on the rest of the community, without being in a position to affect, warp and distort the moral attitudes of other people, when two adults who are beyond a certain age and are sick with this particular illness do this undesirable act in private, they will not be brought as criminals before a criminal court. That is all this legislation says, and anyone in this house, be he the most benign person deserving the greatest respect such as the right hon. gentleman or a new member of parliament deserving equal respect but not with his experience, who treats this subject honestly and objectively has no right to say that we are doing anything other than what I have just described. I respect-I hope I do; I know I do-differences of opinion on this kind of moral subject as much as anyone else, but I resent with all my heart and soul the attempt by hon. gentlemen who take the opposite position to beat their breasts in self-righteousness and morality and put all who disagree with them in some kind of immoral corral.
I say to the right hon. gentleman and to other hon. members who are lawyers and
April 18, 1969

know a great deal about jurisprudence and the law, that there are two very important moral concepts in the law. As I have studied jurisprudence and read legal philosophers, there are two moral concepts in the law that are relevant here. One of them is that the prohibitory sections of the law, that part of the law which sets out to interfere with and to stop actions by individuals, ought to be concerned with prohibiting actions that impinge on public order and public decency in society and ought not to be concerned with acts by people which are wholly private and do not impinge on the public order.
That is why there is nothing in the Criminal Code that makes lying a crime, except in certain circumstances. If you lie in a way which slanders to other individuals you will be subject to the law. If you lie in writing about some person in such a way as to do him harm you are subject to the law. But if you simply lie you are not a criminal, even though the Bible and every other moral concept of humanity prohibit lying as being immoral. But as long as a lie uttered by anyone, immoral as it may be, undesirable and repugnant though it may be, does not impinge on anyone else's rights, does not harm any other individual, does not bring him into contempt or ridicule, does not affect his welfare, then one can go on lying, and some do, without end all through one's life, without becoming a victim of the criminal law.
It has been said a dozen times in this house during this debate that adultery is an immoral act. It is prohibited in the Bible and by every other religion. It is prohibited because aside from every other moral question it is an act which affects the integrity of the family and all its members. But it is not a criminal act. The criminal law does not say that anyone who commits adultery is to be charged as being a criminal. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that there may well be a moral argument that adultery is a great deal more "criminal", if I may use that word in quotes, than is the private act of homosexuality by two adults who suffer from a certain mental and moral deviation. There may well be an argument that one is much more destructive of society than the other. In fact one can think of a dozen other immoral acts which, when done by individuals, are not made crimes.
Some hon. members, and the right hon. gentleman in particular with his usual eloquence, went after the government for not doing other things which need to be done for
Criminal Code
Canada. I do not have to tell him or anyone else that I agree with him. I have been one of the most disappointed members of parliament and citizens of Canada watching the Prime Minister and his colleagues engaging more and more in conservative, reactionary policies, including one yesterday and today when the Prime Minister placed himself on the side of management in a labour dispute, with an abandon and lack of care for labour relations such as I have seldom seen in a responsible prime minister of a democratic country. I do not condone the failures of the government in other fields, but surely it is specious argument to say that because the government has failed in other fields therefore this legislation ought not to be here. One does not interfere with the other. The fact that these amendments to the Criminal Code are on the order paper does not prevent the government from doing the thousands of other things it should be doing for the welfare of the people of Canada, and all of us on this side of the house will be needling the government until it does do some of these things.
It is a fact that our criminal law, like the criminal law of many other countries, derived originally from certain concepts which attempted to include in the Criminal Code prohibitions against behavior with which the public law ought not to have anything to do. What is being done in these amendments is to try to bring our Criminal Code a little more up to date. This has been done in Britain and other parts of the democratic world. According to my study of this matter we are one of the few remaining countries in the western democratic world with outdated laws like the ones on homosexuality and abortion in our Criminal Code. All western countries with any progressive pretensions have already amended these provisions in their criminal law. We are just catching up with them.
Some people think and say that we live in a permissive age. I do not think that this is what the young people of Canada and of other countries think. I do not really know what is meant by "permissive" except that some people lay down don'ts and then everybody who does not agree with them is permissive. I do not accept that definition.
[DOT] (12:50 p.m.)
We are living in an age, if I may deal with one phase of it very briefly, when the young people of Canada and of the world are rebelling against the restrictions and constrictions which are impinging upon them in a modern,

April 18. 1969
Criminal Code
technological, complicated society, where the bigness of government, the bigness of corporations, the bigness of trade unions, the bigness of electronics and all the rest of it are hemming in society and individuals in society. They are protesting against this hemming in; they are looking for more freedom. That is not being permissive. They are looking for a greater voice in their own future at the universities. Some of them take advantage of that legitimate desire and legitimate objective to indulge in excesses which no one can condone. Basically, however, our young people are seeking in a determined way a society where their personality and their dignity are recognized, where they are recognized as human beings capable of making up their own minds and where they can exercise their own judgment and engage in activities in which they are left free to engage for their own development and their own enrichment. Let us not call this permissiveness. It is a legitimate situation.
It is in this sense that the young people are questioning. They are saying that for a long time they have been told that "A" is forbidden and that if they do it it is a crime. They say: "Prove it to us; we are not prepared to accept your mere statement without question that it is a crime; tell us why it is a crime." That is not permissiveness. I suggest that we older people ought to greet with pleasure these questions they are asking. They are saying they are not prepared to accept all the "don'ts" and restrictions that have been laid down over the past centuries. They say: "We will accept them if you will explain the reasons and the moral, social and psychological bases to justify these don'ts and prohibitions but we will not accept them just because you say so." I greet their attitude in this regard.
One of the questions of this nature that they ask is why we prohibit private acts between two adults who have this particular sexual aberration. They say: "We want to know; tell us why." I have not heard a single speech in favour of regarding such an act as a crime which justifies its retention in the code.
The young people of Canada, and not only the young people-I know I am out of order on this point and will not dwell on it for long but it was touched on by the right hon. gentleman-are asking why there should be an absolute or almost absolute prohibition against abortion. They ask why the modern techniques of psychiatry, psychology, medicine and modern ethics in these fields should not be taken into consideration and be given

recognition by the law. They are right to ask that question.
If you think of this matter in the context I have tried to describe, I am sure inadequately, if you think of this matter in its true perspective and if you look objectively at the amendment to the Criminal Code which we are now discussing and not with your prejudices but with your eyes and mind, then, I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that what is proposed in the amendment to the Criminal Code in this area is merely a sensible, modern version which recognizes the dignity and rights of people even though their acts may be regarded with some disgust. That is all it does. To interpret it in any other way would be to exaggerate and distort its effect in a manner which could do harm which was never intended by the legislation proposed.
In conclusion may I say a few words on another subject. The right hon. gentleman in his very interesting speech repeated again his objection to the fact that the bill was not divided and his objection to the committee system. Let me merely draw the attention of the house to the fact that we are dividing the bill. For voting purposes we are dividing the bill.


Mr. Valade:: You are not.


David Lewis: We certainly are. We are now debating and will be voting on each particular part of the bill.


Georges-J. Valade: On the whole bill.


David Lewis: It is all one, but by the time we have completed it the house will have had every opportunity to declare itself on each clause of the bill.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Lewis: Since the majority of this house will be declaring itself on each clause of the bill at this stage we say, why in heaven's name should we have to do it all over again? So far as the committee is concerned, I was not a member of the committee but I do not think anybody in this house ought to get away with some of the suggestions which have been made. I am informed by those who were members of the committee that at least one of the amendments to one of the clauses, the breathalyzer clause, was passed by the committee against the minister's position and arguments and that the minister accepted some 20 or 30 amendments from members of the committee which originally had not been proposed.
April 18, 1969


Georges-J. Valade: That is the only one that was accepted.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, the committee system is capable of working. It is not yet working as well as we hope it will, but the fact is the committee system has resulted in changes even in this legislation.
I hope a majority of this house will support this amendment to the Criminal Code and I hope the people of Canada understand and know that those of us who are supporting the amendment in respect of homosexuality are just as repelled as they are by that act. We are just as anxious to make clear that it is an immoral and undesirable act, but we think the time has come to modernize the law.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It being one o'clock this sitting stands suspended until 2 p.m.
At one o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2 p.m.
Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I would like, at this stage, to make a few remarks in support of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise).
While doing so, I wish to refer to some arguments put forward this morning by the spokesman for the New Democratic party, the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) who, before the lunch recess, brought out, I think, the mentality and philosophy of the New Democratic party.
Since the hon. member for York South is a very famous lawyer, I expected him to try and make a good case for the bill but, on the contrary, he made a great number of remarks in which he especially suggested that the members who supported the government amendment concerning the omnibus bill considered it precisely as the legalization of homosexuality.
I was surprised to hear him question the honesty of the members who oppose this measure. In fact, he even carried his cynicism further because, after having said that he questioned the honesty of members who thought that this amendment proposed the legalization of this act which is against nature-
Criminal Code


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. The member for York South is raising a point of order.


David Lewis: I made none of the remarks which the hon. member ascribes to me. I do not question the honesty or the sincerity of any member. I only stated the philosophy which the hon. member expresses and which other members support.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I accept the correction that the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) wished to make, but his words have perhaps gone beyond his thoughts. I have carefully noted the remarks he made this morning when he said, and I quote:

Anyone in this house who would deal honestly with this subject could not but say that this is legalization, and could not accept the legalization of something wrong. In saying this we must remember that these are perhaps indirect legal terms. If the hon. member wishes to correct me I should like to know his correct wording, because those are the words I heard this morning.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, may I rise on another point of order?


David Lewis: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. The hon. member for York South again on a point of order.


David Lewis: What I have said, Mr. Speaker, is this: The right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) stated that if this legislation became the law of the land, the Canadian parliament would tell the young Canadians that we support the act which is now prohibited under the Criminal Code. It is not true; in fact, this is what I object to.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I would not want to engage in a legal argumentation on what was said. I will take the word of the hon. member for York South and this gives me the opportunity to state unequivocally that when hon. members, whoever they are and whatever party they belong to, make their views known on one subject or another, and in particular on Bill C-150, they do so honestly and with a full awareness of their responsibilities.

April 18, 1969
Criminal Code
Personally, I have no hesitation in saying that if we vote in favour of Bill C-150, we legalize an unnatural act and we recognize that the Canadian government accepts it by making it a legal act.
I am not a lawyer but I know that when something is right, and legal, the government does not have to step in with a legislation. When the government introduces legislation to amend a bill, it is because it wants to correct an existing situation. Up to now, the Criminal Code prohibited the practice of this third sex, but under the omnibus bill, the government in fact legalizes an act which, up to now, was illegal.
What surprises me most, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that the hon. member for York South attempted to convince this house that by moving different amendments, in fact we were dividing the bill and it made it unnecessary for the government itself to move various amendments.
Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that in so doing, the hon. member for York South simply wants to whitewash too easily this government for the way it acts towards parliament obliging all hon. members to vote for a whole bill which contains certain amendments extremely interesting and quite acceptable.
Unfortunately, by means of tactics which I describe without hesitation as blackmail, the government wants to force hon. members, by sweetening the pill a little with certain amendments they support, to accept the whole bill which contains unacceptable amendments and qualifications concerning public as well as individual ethics. I agree with the hon. member for York South that it is not the responsibility of parliament to legislate on matters of private morality. However, when the government legalizes a situation which is likely to have a bad influence on the environment, I suggest that a certain aspect of public morality is involved. We should then surely reject that part of clause 7 which deals with homosexuality.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)
The government refuses to split the bill lest it should be defeated when the vote is taken. In fact, it is trying to conceal dishonest tactics which prevent members from freely stating their views on each and every aspect of this bill.
If, as the hon. member for York South said this morning, the members were free in the committee to move and have adopted any amendments they wanted, why would there

be now, before parliament, 44 amendments from all sides of the house? Such an unusual number tends to prove that the members are opposed to the bill now under study, otherwise they would have readily accepted it as a whole. We feel unable to do so, however, and the way in which the government-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order.
I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but may I remind him that the remarks he has been making from the start seem to indicate he believes we are now on second reading, whereas we are dealing now with a specific amendment. I therefore ask him to restrict his remarks- to this amendment.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, with regard to your warning may I point out that the hon. member for York South had plenty of time for discussion this morning. He tried to justify the government by saying that parliament was actually free to pass the amendments and that, by the same token, we were under no obligation to vote on the whole omnibus bill.
My answer to the hon. member is that once all the amendments are disposed of and the passage of the bill is proposed, we shall have to vote on all its provisions. I suggest that such a procedure is unacceptable because it distorts the role of democracy and deprives every member of the opportunity of expressing his views on the merits of each amendment.
Mr. Speaker, speaking to the amendment of the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise), the hon. member for York South said this morning, for instance, that it does not behoove the government to intervene in matters- of individual moral standards.
Now, if we carry his argument to its ultimate conclusions, we should ask that great defender of individual rights how he reconciles the fact that two persons can commit homosexual acts in1 private without being considered criminal's, while three homosexuals performing the same acts in similar privacy would in point of fact become criminals.
If the hon. member for York South, in the light of his considerable knowledge of the law, can tell us how he explains that we thereby defend the principle of individual freedom, I should like him to explain this anomaly to the house.
This great defender could also perhaps tell me whether, when- the government legislates to forbid young people to use marijuana, we
April 18, 1969

Criminal Code
are not interfering with individual freedom? As a competent lawyer, he should explain to us how legislators would violate the individual freedom by, on the one hand, trying to forbid homosexual acts performed in private by no more than two persons of over 21 years of age, while on the other hand we may declare the use of marijuana illegal because it is contrary to public order?
This goes against the deterioration of individual morality and, therefore, of public morality.
We could support this argument in the field of narcotics as well as in that of all the excesses an individual may indulge in. The duty of the legislator is to maintain order, for the common good. If, through the proposed legislation, we show to our youth that legislators are unable to assume their responsibilities, that they are afraid of the reaction of a small group of agitators who, under the cover of freedom, are taking advantage of a situation, at the expense of society as a whole, we are giving a bad example to that youth and we are proving once more that the government has yielded to political imperatives instead of promoting the welfare of the Canadian people. The member for York South acknowledged this morning that there were certain moral aspects to the legislation when the common good is at stake.
I would like to ask him to explain what will happen if we pass the bill on homosexuals or sex perverts. What will happen to our society if, through this legislation, we open the door to what is called homosexual prostitution? What shall we do with people who are submitted to blackmail by specimens of this third sex? The member for York South, who has practiced law several years, should know that such things exist. If we accept this omnibus bill as it is presented to us, how will we be able to protect society against abuses in this field?
I am sorry I did not get any answer to the questions I put yesterday to the Minister of Justice. I had thought the hon. member for York South would have answered some of them, because he admitted himself this morning, and I quote:
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)

"These people"-he was speaking of homosexuals-"affected by emotional trouble, or whatever it is." Et plus loin, il dit: "Those with a particular illness."

Mr. Speaker, I would be curious to find out what the hon. member for York South knows on this subject. He talks of people mentally unbalanced. Whatever the problem, he concludes that this is a particular illness. He admits he does not know anything about the basic problem of homosexuality. He supports this bill in a rather partisan fashion and in a particular way when, in my view, the impact of this bill will result only in debasing our society which is going through a conscience crisis. We all recognize the importance of giving our young people, our society, through our directives, the image of persons whose responsibility tends to restore order and respect for the community and the individual.
Mr. Speaker, what surprises me most is the position taken by the members of the New Democratic party.
I might remind them what a Labour member, Mr. Tommey, said in the British parliament his speech is reported in the newspaper Carrefour under the signature of Mr. Raymond Lacoste, a Parisian journalist, and I quote:
I protest against the tone of alleged intellectual superiority adopted by the supporters of this bill.
He was speaking to the bill on the legalization of homosexuality. I go on reading:
What these people are in fact asking us is to allow male prostitution, when a few years ago parliament dealt severely with female prostitution and waged war against call-girls.
But today, by a strange aberration of mind, British legislators are being more indulgent for unnatural acts than for acts which, though they are in a way sinful, are after all natural.
Those are the remarks of a Labour member in England who was against the legislation introduced at that time in the British parliament.
Mr. Speaker, I take part once again in this debate because I think that we are again submitted to irresponsible pressure from the government. We are here as representatives of our ridings. We know the turn of mind, the ideas, the character, the aspirations of those who elected us to represent them here.
I know that no Liberal member of the province of Quebec here can assure me that the majority of the people in his riding is in favour of the bill on homosexuality.
I challenge our colleagues on the opposite side to stand up in their place, to speak out and to put forward arguments supporting that clause 7. I know that the hon. members from Quebec who intend to support the bill do not

April 18, 1969
Criminal Code
reflect the opinion nor the aspirations of the people they represent in the house.
Mr. Speaker, I am not suggesting that every hon. member is not entitled to his own point of view, but the fact that we have been elected to the house to represent the people is undeniable. We must take into account the point of view of our electors and not be unwilling to take position, since this is the most far-reaching bill ever put before the house. As the Minister of Justice has said himself, that legislation-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.
Has the hon. member the unanimous agreement of the house to conclude his speech?


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: I see
that unanimous consent has not been given.


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I feel it is my duty to intervene again in that stupid debate-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


André-Gilles Fortin: -which, in my opinion, means only wasting the time of the nation on a bill which has been introduced by the New Democratic party.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I have listened carefully and with amazement to the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) who put forward arguments of a humanistic nature. After hearing him, I ask myself: What is humanism? To be a humanist, must one suppress human dignity, personal liberty, the natural pleasure of free self-development?
Mr. Speaker, I seriously wonder to what extent he was being honest. The humanistic socialist, if I understood correctly, states positively that God does not exist, that man is descended from the ape. Nevertheless, the hon. member for York South proved to us this morning that the study of certain subjects is a long and drawn-out process.
Mr. Speaker, an attempt is being made to legalize abortion and homosexuality. Everyone realizes that opinions in this house are divided about this bill, which, in my view, is criminal and stupid.

This bill is a socialistic piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker. Who are the ones who give it their approval?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


André-Gilles Fortin: I am happy, Mr. Speaker, to see that some members find my words amusing; it shows with what irresponsibility they are considering subjects as important as the ones we are now discussing. But, if we stop and think about what is happening in the socialist countries where similar legislation has been adopted, we realize that it has not been in the best interest of the population.
Again, last night, on the C.B.C., we were given news about Czechoslovakia.
Upon learning that Mr. Dubcek had quit, and in the way the newscast came, we could only wonder if the decision was his own.
We remember, Mr. Speaker, that students revolted against the lack of freedom of the press and a lot of other individual freedoms of which they were deprived. In Canada, with the omnibus bill-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. I realize the comments of the hon. member are most interesting, regarding current international affairs, but I would ask him to limit his comments to the particular amendment before us.


André-Gilles Fortin: I thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was on the point of closing my remarks about the national network, because to talk about our national stables is no way of raising the level of this debate.
[DOT] (2:30 p.m.)
Even here in Canada, Mr. Speaker, our freedoms are gradually being removed, while our individual initiative is weakening, as a result of our accelerated progress towards state socialism supported by the1 federal Liberal party and the New Democratic party.
One is socialist for practical purposes because it is in office and the other for idealistic reasons because it is not. The tentacles of the State-


David Lewis: Does the hon. member remember that the Leader of the Opposition-


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to the hon. member for York South that if he has some questions to ask me, I will be pleased to answer them.
The tentacles of the State, Mr. Speaker-


David Lewis: May I put a question to the hon. member, Mr. Speaker.
April 18, 1963


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Would the hon. member for Lotbiniere let the hon. member for York South ask him a question?


André-Gilles Fortin: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Capitalists are always open-minded towards socialists.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to know that the hon. member for Lotbiniere is a capitalist and I should like to ask him if he recalls that the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) has also brought in an amendment.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, it is possible. I do not know. If so, it is because he is financed by the same electoral funds.
I continue with my speech. The state tentacles are clutching us more and more.
Our basic rights are limited-because of this bill and others of the same kind-not only by the rights of others, but also and mainly by those assumed by the State which curbs our freedom more stringently than ever.
For our governments, the people at large have become a kind of anonymous body upon which certain things have to be imposed-and I did say imposed; whether it likes it or not, whether it agrees or not, it matters very little. Since socialistic countries advocate certain measures, we imagine we ought to do the same if we feel it is good for the people.
Some of our politicians seem to believe that the common good obviously means the good of the individual. We have come to the point where we exchange our freedom and a portion of our incomes for the so-called socialistic collective manna. Freedom should never be taken for granted; there will always be some person or some group who will try to inflict their views upon us.
Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that we should have to discuss things of that type. Let us try to find out who would like us to adopt this bill and these clauses.
First, I see the Liberal party, a collection of puppets under the leadership of a trio of practical socialists. As the puppets cannot either talk nor object, it is the socialists, those former supporters of the New Democratic Party, who actually are in office. The other members who favour the passing of this bill, on this side of the house, are mainly the members of the New Democratic Party, not practical but idealistic socialists. In view of the fact that they are not in office and that they cannot implement their plans, they have
Criminal Code
no other alternative but to support the government with both feet, both hands, and on all fours.
I have a great deal of consideration for my colleagues of New Democratic Party because they show a good deal of imagination in many fields but I fail to understand how those great champions of the human person can also crawl in front of this majority government, arrogant and totalitarian.
Those ideas are not shared by the people. Besides, the hon. member for Sainte-Marie (Mr. Valade) is aware of that as I am myself and as the cabinet will soon be also.
Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure to inform the house that in a few days, the cabinet-I pray the hon. members to mark my words for this is serious-will receive from the people of Ontario and Quebec at least 100,000 protests against the omnibus bill clauses dealing with homosexuality and abortion, and we hope they will be received before the bill is passed. Can it be said that the people are in favour of this bill? No, Mr. Speaker.
Let us consider what is going on in socialist countries. As we could learn yesterday through the news, no moral principle is respected and that, on the pretence that freedom and the rights of a pluralist community must be safeguarded.
Idealist and practical socialists, as pointed out by the hon. member for York South, claim that young people want a society where their personality can develop on sound bases. But what sound bases?
Mr. Speaker, the young people wish humbly for a reappraisal of the role of the family and the individual in society. They have ideals, they insist on respect for the human being, his sincerity, his honesty and finally his dignity.
Mr. Speaker, there is a basic point that must be stressed, namely respect.
Yet, those same socialists do not recognize the freedom of their own fellow workers, neither in committee nor in the house, for the sole purpose of complying with the principle of cabinet fellowship, as was so brilliantly pointed out by the right hon. member for Prince Albert. Those same socialists, as he said, do not hesitate to grant their own colleagues the freedom of objecting, of expressing their views, no matter whether they are for or against a measure.
On the pretence of freedom, they want to impose their views by means of dictatorial

April 18, 1969
Criminal Code
methods. Where is freedom then? The principle of the omnibus bill comes from the United Kingdom, by the own admission of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner), as I said last evening.
England is run by the Labour party, in other words by a socialist government. We all know where they are now not only as far as their economy is concerned but also from the social and political point of view: they are going downhill. It does not rest with the house to legislate on the standards of morality.
We have no more the right to consider alcoholics as criminals or depraved persons than to say that homosexuals are criminals. It is, however, our duty to take steps likely to ensure the respect due to the dignity of the human being.
Mr. Speaker, I cannot honestly believe that this bill contributes in any way to the respect of the individual. We have the strict obligation in this house to ascertain if the laws we want to pass go against either the common good or the private interest of the individual.
We can only repeat, Mr. Speaker, what I was saying a moment ago: the dignity of the human being should always be a prime concern in our debates. Besides, young people give ample proof of such a quest.
In socialist countries, people question this principle because they have foregone their dignity and are no longer respected.
What is more serious in all this is that the Canadian family has become a problem. Because of urbanization, industrialization and extremely advanced means of communication, the family is no longer in a position to protect itself from solicitation, of publicity and, unfortunately, the government.
The extraneous activities of the family are much more developed than they used to be. In other words, Mr. Speaker, the members of the Canadian family have an important social role to play. The family is no longer that privileged place which used to protect its members against whatever it wanted to reject. Today, the family is compelled to welcome all sorts of publications from outside. The increasing demand for education has built up an intellectual gap between parents and children, even though they all live together and communication between parents and children has become very difficult because of the difference in the education levels of parents and children. As a consequence, parents have lost much of their authority on their children: they do not speak the same language. Children are submitted to

all sorts of influence from which it is now impossible to protect them. In other words, Mr. Speaker, the traditional family that we used to know has gradually disappeared.
As I said earlier, we must now consider the basic necessity of upgrading the role of the family in society.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, I think this subject is most important, because if we pass this bill legalizing abortion, we are weakening the family and we are endangering the respect for woman.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member again, but the amendment now under consideration does not deal with abortion, the subject the hon. member is discussing.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I have just said a few words about abortion.
The passing of the omnibus bill on homosexuality will strike another blow, a fatal blow this time, at the Canadian family.
If consenting adults are allowed to commit unnatural acts, and if society finds that normal and does nothing to cure them, we can imagine all the questions the young people will ask themselves concerning the importance of respecting the human being, more particularly the woman.
Mr. Speaker, since we have a society, a nation to build, it seems elementary to me that in this house at least, we ask ourselves whether by passing this bill, we will promote the progress of the Canadian family, or if we will not instead contribute to its disappearance, as was1 the case in socialist countries.
Mr. Speaker, if, under the pretext of safeguarding freedom, we prevent the Canadian family from growing we shall have committed a criminal act we will regret for the rest of our days.
Mr. Speaker, I had extremely interesting remarks to make at this point. In his introductory speech, the Minister of Justice said this about the committee of the United Kingdom, and I quote:

of giving in his report the following arguments as being the strongest arguments in favour of keeping the regulations under which homosexual acts between consenting adults that are committed in private are criminal acts, namely:
-they threaten the health of society-
The arguments raised against the legalization of homosexuality were the following and I quote:
-they threaten the health of society-
April 18, 1969

That was the first. The second was:
-that they have harmful effects on family life-
The third argument raised against its adoption was this one:
-a man who indulges in these practices with another man may want to do it with boys.
Such are then the three fundamental objections which were raised before the committee of Sir John Wolfenden in the United Kingdom. Three arguments that are really interesting, fundamental, important and irrefutable threaten the health of society, family life and can induce those men to commit such acts with boys.
Now, the minister says:


Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.
Does the house consent to extend the time of the hon. member?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: There is no unanimous consent.
Is the house ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Rene  Malle@Champlain: Mr. Speaker, I followed with great interest the speech given this morning by the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker). Above all, I was1 pleased to see that, in this house, the dean, a former Prime Minister, and the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin), one of the youngest members in this house, who is 25 years old, both shared the same opinion. They want to protect the dignity of our country and the freedom of the human being.
It is therefore comforting to note that most of those who have spoken to date reflect the opinion of the Canadian people. That is why we insist so much, Mr. Speaker. We feel obliged to defend the dignity of the people.
Yesterday, I heard one of the government members, the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Mongrain), to whom is regularly entrusted the care of passing around the gossip. At times, one would be enclined to call him a "Quebec Pere Ovide". The hon. member for Trois-Rivieres claimed that I said, and I quote:
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.
Criminal Code
As for him, from time to time he tours my riding. Of course, I saw him throughout the election campaign. He was campaigning for the other candidate Matte, and I know full well that he knows my riding. He occasionally meets some of my electors. To avoid any misunderstanding, I should like to explain what I mean by 100 per cent, Mr. Speaker.
I do not know which constituents the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres meets when he comes to my riding. As for me, when I speak of 100 per cent, here is what I mean: no one has come to me, as member for Champlain, to ask to push this bill. I say again, no one. I could even challenge the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres. Let him come to my riding, or me to his, and let him introduce me to people who will ask me to work for this bill.
We will fight strenuously for our point of view. We really have considerable support. If, as someone said a while ago, we are now wasting time discussing this matter, it is not that we want to do so, but that the government forces us to do it. We would not like to be told in our ridings: you were in favour of the omnibus bill; you were in favour of homosexuality and abortion; you accepted that the debate be limited to four days, so that the bill could be passed on the double, so that the debate would not drag on.
You see what our situation would be like. We are therefore forced to hold up the business of the house on matters which doubtless are more important, but unfortunately the government is forcing us to fight for our point of view.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
We are in a position to assume our responsibilities and we assume them. Why are we so confident? Because 100 per cent of the people backs us.
Why I am saying 100 per cent? because nobody came as yet to ask me to back the adoption of the bill. The only people who asked us to do so, as the hon. member for Lotbiniere has just pointed out, are the legislators, the members of the New Democratic Party, and the few members of the Liberal party who have tried to enforce it.
I already said it, two days ago. Indeed, we never received any document asking us to back the bill.
Thus, after studying the reasons why the government suggested the adoption of the bill, we may conclude that there are only a few individuals, in the house, who are in favour of its adoption.

April 18, 1969
Criminal Code
In my opinion, that does not enhance the revalorization of our parliamentary institutions.
The bill was talked about, for the first time, while the right honourable present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was the Minister of Justice. This is how the capital matters that we are busy discussing seem to have originated.
Mr. Speaker, when we tell the house that our constituents are backing us, it is not just a lot of hot air. We are really echoing the voice of our people.
We say that we do not see anywhere those who set forth the reasons in favour of the bill those who contributed to the discussion of clause 7 of the omnibus bill. Having looked high and low, we reached the conclusion that nobody at all was backing that clause, except the right honourable Prime Minister.
At this stage, I would like to prove that such bills are nothing but the outcome of the lucubrations of a young man of 50.
I have here an excerpt of an article published in Maclean Magazine. Mr. Andre Langevin refers in it to the present government under the heading. "Three Angelic Doves". In my opinion, that article will explain the origin of the present bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. If the hon. member would indicate the relationship between that article and the amendment now under study, I shall allow him to quote it.


Mr. Matte:: Mr. Speaker, by means of this article, I want to show that the amendment designed to delete paragraph (b) of subsection-(1) of the act, must be passed for the simple reason that those who introduced the bill do not reflect public opinion in the least.
People are not asking for such things. Since we are discussing that amendment, I would like to show the house, by reading that article, how the sponsor of the bill cannot say that he introduced it with the support of the Canadian people.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. We are not at the second reading stage of the bill. We are not discussing the bill but the amendment which is now under study. Then, I shall ask the member to restrict his remarks to the proposed amendment.


René Matte: Mr. Speaker, the amendment concerned reads as follows:
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 in clause 7 paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of the proposed new section 149A.
So, I am not wandering from the point. I want the house to accept this amendment to delete from paragraph (b) of subsection 1 the proposal it contains. I also want all members of this house to hear all relevant arguments so that they will be in a better position to judge objectively whether to pass this amendment or not. As I was saying, this is what Maclean's magazine says:
-trie three doves who, in Ottawa, administer the first "truly French-Canadian Department in Canada's history" are, according to the Toronto Telegram, heading upwards at a tremendous pace towards the seventh heaven of a just society.
Mr. Speaker, this bill reflects the general purpose suggested by the government at the beginning of this session, namely the establishment of a just society, and the legislation before us is supposed to contribute to the establishment of that just society.
Surely the hideous weight of thankfulness, which never spared the angels of politics, has led them astray sometimes in the lower and so human levels of patronage, just long enough to pay tribute to the defeated candidates and their organizers, in the purest tradition of the rotten parties of long ago;


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Order. I can see no relation between what the hon. member is saying and the amendment before the house.
The hon. member is surely allowed, as he said a moment ago, to justify the merits of this amendment and his desire to see it passed, but the amendment has nothing to do with the matters referred to by the hon. member. Accordingly, I ask him-and this is why I call him to order-to justify the amendment he is proposing.


René Matte: I apologize, Mr. Speaker, but the following paragraph was just bringing us back to the subject matter.
I continue my quotation:
They have lost their bearings-
Meaning the doves.
-they are flying in the blue sky in quiet possession of serenity, so high up that they have to tear through clouds of angelic virtue to be able to communicate with us.
They barely dare speak now about the little problems that stir up the troubled waters of our frog pond. Three wing flaps are enough to take them out of sight, and our face is red because such high vistas are denied us.
April 18, 1969

Mr. Speaker, we do not see from such high vistas that we cannot see that the government is introducing these measures under the misleading pretext of respecting freedom. But what kind of freedom could that be?
Mr. Speaker, I have a free choice. Of course, there is no accounting for tastes nor can anyone decide for someone else, but the fact remains that there are good and bad tastes, as there is good and bad freedom.
Consequently, they say, under the pretext of protecting freedom, and to take away homosexuality from the Criminal Code, that the first consideration should be that those people are sick, and it should not be a crime to be sick.
On the face of it, this seems logical, but that is exactly what we are asking for. We do not need any legislation to do it; we have only to promote the establishment of hospitals to help rehabilitate the people affected with this sickness, and I have no objection against that. This is a matter for the Department of National Health and Welfare, and not for the Department of Justice. One should just put things back into place.
If homosexuality is a kind of disease and if therefore one cannot sue someone who is conducting in such a way since he is sick, in order to be logical, let us apply the same reasoning to other cases. Let us legalize theft, since kleptomaniacs are the subject of morbid impulses which prompt them to appropriate things which do not belong to them. They are unable to resist these impulses. It is a real mental disease. They cannot help it. They have to do it. So, since there are some people who suffer from kleptomania, which is an innate attraction for robbery, let us make robbery legal.
If homosexuality is no more considered a criminal act, let us legalize the acts of all kleptomaniacs, under the pretence it is a disease. Every kleptomaniac will only have to have his card signed by a psychiatrist, certifying that he is a kleptomaniac, and he will be authorized to do hold-ups when he is 21.
Mr. Speaker, this is ridiculous. I see that government members are of the same opinion. If we asked a kleptomaniac to give his opinion, he would say exactly the same. It is absurd. The government wants to legalize homosexuality. As to the kleptomaniac, a product of a sick society, he is rejected by that very society. The effects of his disease, that is thefts, are not legalized.
Criminal Code
I think, Mr. Speaker, that we are facing a real problem. Even though all comparisons are said to be inadequate, I think this one is rather correct. In both cases, it is a morbid attraction, in one case for theft, in the other for someone of the same sex. These are deviations. If we legalize homosexuality, we should also legalize kleptomania.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
Carrying this argument further on, Mr. Speaker, would lead to a most ridiculous situation, under the pretence that some individuals, considered to be criminals, are only sick peoples. One can imagine how far this would lead us.
Suppose that at one or two o'clock in the morning, I feel an urge not to stop on a red light, taking upon myself to drive on. If all the drivers who do not stop on a red light decided to have a legislation passed in order to do away with those damned red lights, the situation would be quite disastrous.
Once more this reasoning is ridiculous but then, as my hon. friend from Lotbiniere said, we are discussing something silly. Therefore, we must try and speak about silly things too. We are now dealing with things which as I told earlier while speaking on an amendment, I am ashamed to have to discuss in this most dignified house. I am not overprudish, but I think it is somewhat disgusting to have to discuss such topics when in fact the problem does not exist.
And, Mr. Speaker, this is what surprises us more. It is particularly obvious for those who are new in the house. I am frankly astonished to see that all I have been told about majority governments is right. It is even worst than what I was expecting. I was unpleasantly surprised when I realized that a free vote was being contemplated.
I admit that when I heard that expression before coming to the house of commons, I did not grasp its full meaning. I thought that after all, the members, representatives of the people, were free; but today, I understand better what is meant by a free vote. On the other hand, I do not dare explain it to my constituents, because I find it so silly and so absurd to speak of a free vote. If one admits that, from time to time, a free vote is allowed, it means that usually, it is not so. It is therefore-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please, I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: More, more.

April 18, 1969
Criminal Code


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Is the
house giving unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: There is not unanimous consent.
Is the house ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Pursuant to standing order 75 (11), the vote on this amendment is deferred.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Is it the
pleasure of the house to adopt the said amendment? All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: In my
opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen: The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard): Pursuant to section 11 of Standing Order 75 the recorded division on the amendment now being considered stands deferred.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
It is suggested that amendments numbers 10 and 11 be called and considered prior to amendment No. 9. This suggestion is made in light of the fact that amendment No. 9 is much wider in scope than amendments 10 and 11 and a procedural difficulty could arise in the event of an affirmative vote on amendment No, 9. When debate on amendment No. 9 has been concluded the house will revert to amendment No. 3 for the purpose of taking votes on the amendments which have already been considered. It might be stated that amendment No. 9 proposes the deletion of two clauses, namely clauses 12 and 13 of Bill C-150. In this connection it is suggested that in future the clauses should be dealt with separately.
We will now consider amendment No. 10.


Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleion):: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We have not dealt with amendments 7 and 8.
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. B6chard).l


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: I apologize to the house. We will now consider amendment No. 7.


Mr. Melvin McQuaid (for Mr. Woolliams) moved:: 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 inserting in clause 7, after the word "age" on line 9, page 24, the following words: "except as to bestiality and carnal copulation with a beast."
He said: Mr. Speaker, I had not originally intended to speak at this time in>
respect of this particular amendment, but I find myself in somewhat the same position as the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefen-baker), except that I am not going to attend any function at which a bust of me will be unveiled. I do, however, find that I am to leaive tomorrow on a trip with the Fisheries Committee and for that reason in all probability will not be in this house when the vote is taken on these amendments.
Very briefly, I wish to make abundantly clear that I am opposed to these suggested amendments to the Criminal Code which deal with homosexuality and abortion. If I were privileged to be in the house when the votes on these clauses are taken I would very definitely vote against them. I had the opportunity to speak on these subjects as a member of the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. It probably is not necessary for me at this time to review the reasons for my opposition because I think I made them abundantly clear in previous speeches I have made on these particular matters.
I definitely cannot accept the argument put forward this morning by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) when he said we have the privilege of voting against these clauses when they are considered and that this constitutes a free vote. I do not agree with that suggestion at all. I would very quickly point out there are clauses in these proposed amendments with which I am in full agreement.
There are excellent amendments suggested here for which I certainly should like to vote but unfortunately I cannot convince myself that, if I should vote against any particular clause during the clause by clause consideration, I should vote in favour of the whole bill at the conclusion of the clause by clause consideration. I submit this is exactly what I would be required to do. If, for instance, I
April 18/ 1969

should vote against new section 149A I do not see how, when the whole bill is before us, I could reverse myself and vote in favour of the whole bill which would include section 149A and any other clauses to which I am opposed. This is one reason I suggest the bill should be divided so that we would have an opportunity to vote against those matters with which we do not agree and vote for those matters in which we concur. 1 say the situation is most unfortunate.
I repeat that there are clauses in this bill with which I am in full agreement and which I think should pass and become the law of the land. For that reason, I would like to be able to vote for certain clauses in this bill. However, I cannot go along with the clause dealing with homosexuality or the clause in respect of legalized abortion. I realize that at the present time the rules of the house will not permit me to put forward my argument against the part of the bill which legalizes abortion. I realize I am confined now to the amendment which is before us.
This clause was discussed very fully before the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. It has been pointed out this morning that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) did accept some amendments. However, in respect of the clauses dealing with abortion and the one we have before us now, there is absolutely no relenting on the part of the government. Apparently the government will not tolerate any suggested amendments to these clauses. I am at a loss to understand why.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
I have not yet seen any great public demand that these particular amendments should be introduced. I do not believe there has been any great demand on the part of the public that the law in respect of homosexuality, for example, should be relaxed. I have not noticed any uproar across this country to have the law broadened in the way it is now suggested it should be. The minister, of course, suggests we are not legalizing homosexuality. I do not entirely go along with his argument because I believe if we pass a law which would make something legal which has been illegal, we would actually be legalizing it. If someone could convince me that this amendment did not legalize homosexuality I might be persuaded to change my mind, but I cannot see anyone could possibly arrive at that conclusion. While I realize the minister is not prepared to see eye to eye with the amendment of the hon. member for Calgary
Criminal Code
North (Mr. Woolliams) which would add the words "except as to bestiality and carnal copulation with a beast". I think, however, he has suggested he would go along with the idea that there may be some doubt as to the Interpretation of this proposed section as expressed by Professor Mewett. He has suggested that even if these words are not added, conduct of this kind between two or more persons or a married couple would not constitute an offence. If there is any doubt in this regard I think these words should be added. This would prevent any possibility of the interpretation suggested by the Professor.
I am sure everyone appreciates the fact that the first reading of a law is not likely to be an accurate or conclusive reading. Laws are subject to many interpretations. A law might be interpreted in one way today and in an entirely different way a year from now. If we can avoid any possibility of misinterpretation by adding these words to the proposed section, I think we ought to add them. The only purpose of this amendment is to avoid any possibility of misinterpretation, and it has been put forward because of Professor Mewett's representations to the committee. All we are asking the house to do is clarify the measure so that the interpretation suggested by Professor Mewett cannot be made. With the exceptions set out in this amendment, only one interpretation will be possible. I do not think there is anything wrong or unreasonable about the amendment. I suggest it is our duty to make the law as clear as possible.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Before recognizing the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) I should like to make an observation. It is my understanding from reading the statement of Mr. Speaker at page 7600 of Hansard for Wednesday that there was an agreement that the subject matter of amendment No. 8 would be considered concurrently with the subject matter of amendment No. 7. I note that hon. members nod their heads in agreement.


John Napier Turner: As I recall the situation, Mr. Speaker, that was the unofficial agreement the house reached at that time. In view of the fact that both amendments refer to the same subject, they should be considered together.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise) seems to agree that his amendment No. 8 be considered at the same time as

April 18, 1969
Criminal Code
amendment No. 7. Both can be dealt with at the same time-


Gérard Laprise: Agreed.


John Napier Turner: I should like to deal briefly with those arguments introduced by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) during the debate on the third amendment introduced under the Standing Order. This matter was also considered thoroughly by the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. We heard from Alan Mewett, Professor of Law at the University of Toronto. He advanced reasons supporting the necessity for this amendment.
By way of a preliminary remark, I should like to suggest that it is not accurate to say that no amendment was accepted in committee in respect of this particular clause. Those hon. members who have a copy of the bill as amended and reported by the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs will observe the word "force" is added to the new section, paragraph (b) (i). This was done in response to the suggestion of the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave) that we should make it clear that if the consent is extorted by threats or fear of bodily harm there would not be consent within the meaning of the measure. With all respect to the hon. member from Prince Edward Island it is not accurate to suggest that the rigidity he attributes to the reaction of the government to committee members applies to this proposed section.
Let me say also that this proposed section does not legalize homosexuality. The legal effect is to exempt from sections 147 and 149 of the Criminal Code the particular conduct described in new article 149A. That is the sole purpose of this measure, as was well set out in the very able speech this morning by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis). I will now turn to the substance of the amendments introduced by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) and the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise). I do not think one must look at this too seriously from a legal point of view, or as one skilled in the law, in order to determine that it would be a rather tortuous use of the English language to contemplate the necessity for such an amendment. What this clause means is that sections 147 and 149 do not apply to an act committed in private between a husband and wife or any two consenting adult persons. I can not understand how this could possibly sup-

port the argument that bestiality was also exempted.
It is quite clear that Section 149 A must be construed as referring to those acts mentioned in Sections 147 and 149, other than bestiality. This allows for the most liberal dictionary definition of human being.
Let me suggest that Professor Mewett's opinion is not widely shared. Certainly, there is no other academic support to be found for his opinion. I do not rely merely on the opinions of law officers of the Crown to support the opinion I submit to Your Honour and members of the house. This bill was reviewed on two occasions since its original introduction by the Attorneys-General of the provinces. It has also been considered by the members of the uniformity commission. It has also been thoroughly studied by our own standing committee as well as the legal profession, representatives of the medical profession and Crown prosecutors. These individuals have considered and reviewed this particular clause and its predecessor since December 21, 1967.
Apparently Professor Mewett, with his fertile mind, is the only one able to attach this particular construction to the words, and I have in mind the suggestion adopted by the hon. member for Calgary North. Since we can see no doubt at all about the construction of this measure, we have no choice but to reject the proposed amendment.


Melvin James McQuaid: I should like to ask the
minister whether he can give this house one reason or indication of the harm done by the insertion of these words? If there is no harm done and the amendment accomplishes a useful purpose, the minister must surely agree that it is useful and competent. But even if there is only one legal opinion, can it possibly do any harm to the section to have these words inserted?
[DOT] (3:30 pan.)


Mr. Gilbert:: Will it do any good?


Melvin James McQuaid: Someone asked if it would do any good. My suggestion is that if it even clears up the slightest possibility of doubt, it is good. It does not do any harm to put these words in, and it does not cost any more to print them.


John Napier Turner: If the principle submitted by the hon. member were accepted, there would be no end to the drafting of this legislation. We suggest that there is no confusion, and that it is beyond the realm of any construction of language to con-
April 18, 1969

sider that an act between two persons can possibly include bestiality.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, my remarks on amendment No. 7, introduced by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams), and amendment No. 8, that I introduced myself, will be brief since I agree with the statements made last Wednesday by the hon. member for Calgary North when he discussed his own amendment.
By the way, Mr. Speaker, my amendment reads as follows, and I quote:
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 in clause 7 the "period" following the word "act" on line 11 on page 24 and substituting therefor a comma and by inserting the following words:
"except where bestiality is committed".
I am moving that amendment in order to prevent any misinterpretation of that legislation. As I said before during my remarks on amendment No. 6, it may happen that clause 7 of bill C-150 is not deleted from the bill according to our wish. Therefore, we are trying by every means possible to prevent as much damage as possible to the government's proposal.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question? The question is on the amendment.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, again, I feel duty bound to take part in the debate and to express my opinion straightforwardly concerning the two amendments proposed: No. 7, moved by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams), and No. 8, moved by the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise).
Mr. Speaker, I believe that both amendments, as the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) said, are quite similar and both propose the adoption of almost the same measures.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we axe happy to co-operate and do not want to delay the proceedings of the house, so that both amendments may be studied jointly and disposed of as swiftly as possible.
Mr. Speaker, a moment ago, I heard the Minister of Justice refer to a certain professor
Criminal Code
Mewett, saying that he had a vivid imagination, that his opinions were not shared by all members of the legal profession, that his assertions could create confusion and were not necessarily worthwhile.
Mr. Speaker, I submit that there is some exaggeration in suggesting that professor Mewett is not competent when we know that he teaches law at the University of Toronto. He is able and recognized as such by several universities. Personally, I had an opportunity to hear about Professor Mewett through other professors in other universities, and I feel his reputation is well founded. It appears that the opinions he has expressed are sound.
Mr. Speaker, while comparing the substance of the bill with what professor Mewett had to say, and keeping his qualifications in mind, I am inclined to believe the professor's statements rather than those of the Minister of Justice.
Professor Mewett said, as recorded on page 341 of Proceedings and Evidence No. 10 of the standing committee on justice and legal affairs, and I quote:
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-
Mr. Speaker, that shows how obscure is the legislation now before the house. If experts fail to understand clearly the content of such legislation, how will ordinary citizens be able to make it out?
I go on with the quotation:
I am not quite sure what that means but in my opinion 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. If three people did it they would be guilty and liable to imprisonment for 14 years. I find that very difficult to follow. I would have thought, if one is concerned with the peculiarity of the act, that it is much more peculiar between two people than between one. I think there has only been two convictions for bestiality in the past 20 years.
Mr. Speaker, I think that the amendment moved by the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise), which has the same purpose as amendment No. 7, is most valid.
It would add to clause 7, since it cannot be deleted. However that clause should be more specific and certain restrictions should be imposed. The amendments really bring in a

April 18, 1969
Criminal Code
legal restraint and it would only be prudent to incorporate such a restriction in the legislation. I quote:
Sections 147 and 149 do not apply to any act committed in private between
(a)	a husband and his wile, 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.
The proposed amendment would add after the word "more of age", in subparagraph (b) the words:
-except where bestiality is committed.
Mr. Speaker, that a man, a human being, an individual should have sexual relations with any kind of animal whatever, pigeons or the doves of the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte), this according to me constitutes an act which in fact is not only against nature but inconceivable. We have here an exceptional case.
Furthermore, professor Mewett himself said that as far as he knew there has been only two convictions for bestiality in the past 20 years: Now, Mr. Speaker, I think that with respect to those exceptional cases, we should at least include a provision prohibiting such an act with an animal.
The minister himself acknowledged a while ago that it was obvious that such an act was neither normal nor natural, that it was illogical and indicated that the individual who committed such an act was suffering from some illness or sexual deviation.
If the minister is ready to recognize that such an act done with an animal is neither natural nor normal, then it is surely not normal to do it with another person.
This is why, Mr. Speaker, I feel that this bill and this clause are entirely inconsistent, since one is ready to condemn the individual who commits a sexual act with an animal, but not the one who does the same thing with another individual of the same sex.
Mr. Speaker, I wonder sometimes where we are going? The right hon. member for Prince Albert pointed out that in the Middle Ages, the students were trying to construct theories, to carry on studies and speculate on the number of angels one could put on the head of a pin.
As I am anxious, Mr. Speaker, to dispute that inconsistent method of legislating, I wonder how many hon. members would consider as logical the prohibition of an act done with an animal, while the same act would be allowed with a person of the same sex.

Mr. Speaker, the amendment moved the hon. member for Abitibi would add the following words:
-except where bestiality is committed.
It is meant to establish the important basic principle that the act committed with an animal is unacceptable in our society and that it indicates that the person who does it is ill.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
Consequently, the Criminal Code should provide for it. Clauses 149, 148 and 147 of the Criminal Code do not clearly define this situation, and if it is dealt with, it is not sufficiently defined to allow the attorney of a defendant, in a particular case, to rely on valid jurisprudence.
The minister himself admits, Mr. Speaker, that the proposed amendment merely clarifies the law. He claims that the clarification is not necessary. As far as we are concerned, we think it is necessary that it be specified in the law so that, in practice, when an act is committed, it will come under the provisions of the law.
Mr. Speaker, with regard to the suggestions contained in amendments Nos. 7 and 8, we realize that the government, to use the minister's expression, would like to protect people of the same sex who would have sexual intercourse. According to him, it is not a question of legalizing but of exempting from the provisions of the Criminal Code, acts committed between two persons of the same sex.
Mr. Speaker, section 149A of the Criminal Code, to which an amendment is proposed in clause 7 of the present bill, provides that such an act between husband and wife would not come under the provisions of the Criminal Code.
Mr. Speaker, it would seem acceptable between husband and wife because it is only natural for a married couple to have sexual intercourse. In my opinion, it is ridiculous to provide for such situations in the law, unless there is no consent.
The same section deals with the commission of a similar act between two persons of 21 or more. Legally speaking, the young people must be at least 21 years old. This is a sine qua non condition. It is not required as a sine qua non condition that people be mentally sane. No. The only condition is that they have completed their twenty-first year. These people are then beyond the reach of the Criminal Code and are permitted to do this as long as they are two to commit the act-
April 18, 1969


Mr. Pierre De Bane (Malane):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member whether he has read clause 2 (b) (ii) which reads as follows, and I quote:
(b) a person shall be deemed not to consent to the commission of an act
(ii) if that person is . . . feeble-minded, insane, or an idiot or imbecile-


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I was about to deal with subsection (b).
I thank the hon. member for having pointed this out to me, and I shall take the opportunity later on to comment on those two subsections.
I was saying, Mr. Speaker, that this clause is intended to spare them the penalties provided for in the Criminal Code, when two persons at least 21 years of age commit a sexual offence, even though they may be of the same sex.
This clause of the bill does not say whether such an act committed with an animal would be legal or illegal. The whole thing is not very specific and is extremely vague.
This is why I willingly support the amendment brought forward by the hon. member for Abitibi who has done an excellent job on this omnibus bill. All this amendment does is to add an>
exception: "except where bestiality is committed", because it is obvious that this is an abnormal and unacceptable deed. Mr. Speaker, we must acknowledge that an act committed with an animal, by a person of sound mind and twenty-one years of age, or more is not natural and that it should be severely punished by the Criminal Code.
Mr. Speaker, this argument is logical and should give some food for thought to the members who sit on the government side.
And I confess, Mr. Speaker, that I am extremely surprised to see my colleagues of this fair and great liberal party afraid to stand up and speak out their minds. I am at a loss to explain that passive behaviour, that puppet reaction.
In committee, we could not move amendments because we were simply boycotted. This is so obvious that at the committee report stage, the hon. members had to move amendments because they were not allowed to do so when the bill was considered in committee. That is why we find ourselves today with 40 amendments, and have to have such foolosh discussions.
Mr. Speaker, I find it unacceptable that the hon. members from the province of Quebec, who know very well that even though our 29180-488J
Criminal Code
mentality is not different from that of others, it is a distinctive one, and that we have firm basic convictions, do not come together against this legislation. They should know that we need a much more serious legislation. I am shocked by their silence.
Our leader, the hon. member for Temisca-mingue (Mr. Caouette), was quite right when he said that those hon. members were stuck to their seats with six inches of Lepage's glue. I sometimes wonder if the Lepage people do not contribute to the Liberal electoral fund, so that the hon. members stick to their seats.
Why do they not ever stand up to express their views? When we talk in this house, all they can do is laugh. They laugh. Look at those laughting faces, like that of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin). Not only is it their attitude, but this is the only thing they can do.
The hon. members of the progressive conservative party stand up and do their best. So I ask my colleagues to pay them this tribute.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, government
members were telling me when the house met: "Did you notice how the hon. member for Prince Albert is unable to grasp the situation?"
Old-fashioned! That is what is being said about an hon. member who has given proof of his worth and to whom many in Saskatchewan are ready to give praise for his greatness and ability. Kindly note that I am not a progressive conservative, but one must be objective. The only thing that the government members manage to do is to indulge in personalities, instead of dealing with the problems, assuming their responsibility as members of Parliament and representing their districts with dignity and in accordance with their principles.
Must we infer that when joining the liberal party an hon. member has to sacrifice his principles, his opinions and his freedom? What is then this vaunted freedom the Liberals are talking about? What manner of a just society is it, which denies to its members freedom of expression? Would it then be a dictatorship? I ask myself that question, Mr. Speaker.
Since the beginning of the present session, I, as a new member, have been sorely disappointed to find that whenever we ask a question, we are given facetious answers, that are liable to give rise to constitutional disputes.
Private Bills

April 18, 1969
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Again I should like to remind the hon. member, and other hon. members, that the debate should be restricted as much as possible to the specific amendment before the house. I invite the hon. member for Lotbiniere to do just that.
fTranslation]


Mr. Clermont:: Who is laughing now?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. We should come back to the matter of the debate.


André-Gilles Fortin: I thank you, Mr. Speaker. I quite agree and I apologize if I get carried away, as I said last night.
But I am young and that may be the reason why I sometimes stray further afield. I believe that it is important that we assume our responsibilities and that, without fear, we at least study the amendments.
I ask the government members to have the courage to read these amendments before stating that they are opposed to them.
Whenever we present a motion to the house, Mr. Speaker, there is a general outcry. When the hon. member for Abitibi said, a moment ago, that he was presenting an amendment in order to clarify the act, he was right.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's time has expired.


René Matte: Mr. Speaker, may I call it four o'clock?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether there would be any general disposition in the house to suspend private members' hour for this afternoon and continue this debate until five o'clock.


Gerald William Baldwin: On one condition, Mr. Speaker; provided that if we complete the study of all those clauses up to the eleventh amendment, the provision as to a recorded vote being taken is such that the vote will not be taken today.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We
agree, Mr. Speaker.
IMr. Fortin.]


André-Gilles Fortin: We do not agree, if it is a question of doing away with private members' hour because the time set aside for that purpose is already too short.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It being four o'clock, the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely private bills.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, February 6, consideration of the motion of Mr. All-mand that Bill S-9, respecting British Northwestern Insurance Company, be read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Broadbent. (p. 5240)
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, this is a bill about which, like others, we periodically have to refresh our memories. Perhaps I should read the remarks made by the sponsor of the bill, the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand), when he introduced it on December 17, as reported at page 4059 of Hansard:
-since this bill has already been before the house on three occasions I will not take very long to explain it. It was before the house on November 3, 1967, January 23, 1968 and February 29, 1968. On November 3 I made a detailed explanation of the bill, to be found at page 3813 of Hansard for that date.
Very briefly, Mr. Speaker, this company seeks, first, permission to change its name and, second, to increase its authorized capital. However, as the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace indicated in his remarks reported in Hansard, the company would be willing to forgo the request for increased capitalization if it could feel some assurance that the name change would be permitted. This, to an extent, seemed then, and still does now, somewhat strange. Perhaps I do not understand the way insurance companies operate, but I would have thought they would have placed more emphasis on increasing their capitalization than they would have on changing their name.
April 18, 1969

I say that because the company operates, directly and through subsidiaries, with companies that have names that are completely different from the Eagle Star, or whatever name the company thinks would be appropriate to adopt in Canada. When this Company offers to give up the prospect of increased capitalization, that means to me simply that the company was not sincere in the first place or is not anxious to have that increased capitalization.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)


Mr. Allmand:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is my understanding that we are now discussing the amendment to my motion. I refer to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) on February 6, 1969, to the effect that the bill be not now read a second time but that it be read six months hence. The remarks of the hon. member for Skeena are a repetition of his original remarks when he was speaking on my motion. I think he ought to keep his argument relative to what we are discussing here and not repeat what he said before.


Frank Howard: I should like to comment on that point of order, Mr. Speaker.


John Napier Turner: You have the wrong file, Frank.


Frank Howard: I thank the hon. member for drawing to my attention that I have made these remarks before. I can only conclude that nothing has changed and that we are still in the position we occupied formerly. I intend to say something about the amendment with respect to the six months hoist. But this point was not really a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I notice you are sitting back comfortably with your arms folded and have no intention of supporting the position of the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace. That is because you and I know, I am sure, that the hon. member has not raised a point of order and is simply wasting the time of the house when we are trying to assist him in coming to some conclusion as to what should happen to this bill.
The hon. member has not the support of the government, either, because the government house leader asked us to dispense with private members' hour and thus deprive the hon. member of the opportunity of dealing with this bill.


John Napier Turner: You must be smiling when you say that, Frank.
Private Bills


Frank Howard: I would smile if it were not for the fact that on one occasion the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson), after the suggestion had been made that private members' hour on that particular occasion might be dispensed with, got up in righteous indignation and said, "Oh no; we as the government, do not agree with that. We think we should continue on all occasions during private members' hour with business sponsored by government members."
As the Minister of Justice said, I might smile if it were not for what the Minister of Agriculture said on one occasion and if it were not for the suggestion that the government house leader made. May I now return to the argument I was pursuing before I was interrupted? I was saying that the company is not sincere.


William Warren Allmand: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I have not quite finished speaking on the hon. member's first point of order. Perhaps, he will wait until I have finished my remarks.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Perhaps I ought to declare now that what was raised was not a point of order. We should return to discussing the amendment.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, may I have a ruling on my point of order?


An hon. Member:: You have just had it.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, Standing Order 34 (2) deals with irrelevancies and repetition. The hon. member is repeating what he said before. Not only is he not speaking to the amendment, but he is repeating what he said on the original motion. I should like to have a ruling on my particular point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am quite prepared to give a ruling. The Standing Orders refer to repetition and relevancy, and there is also an interesting analysis of the rule of relevancy in Beauchesne. I invite hon. members to look at it. May I also observe that the question of relevancy is difficult to interpret. I, therefore, think that the hon. member who has the floor ought to direct his remarks to the amendment. I invite him, in support of the observations of the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace, to limit his remarks as much as possible to the amendment.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I was desperately trying to do that, but it is difficult

April 18, 1969
Private Bills
to do so in view of the commentary coming from hon. members opposite. I am in two minds about the amendment. I do not know whether or not to support it. If I support the amendment for a six month hoist, then hon. members opposite will immediately say that I and members of my group have undertaken six months from now to permit the bill to receive second reading. That would be sometime in October.


An hon. Member:: Right.


Frank Howard: Some hon. member opposite says, right. That convinces me that I ought not to support the amendment for a six month hoist, because to vote for the amendment would be tantamount to voting for the principle of permitting the bill to be read a second time six months from now, and that I cannot accept. In any event, we ought to look carefully at what this bill attempts to do.
Really we are attempting to determine how we ought to proceed with respect to this bill. We, therefore, ought to examine it carefully to see exactly what the change of name that is sought will do. I do not think the company was very sincere in asking for an increase in capitalization; otherwise it would not have abandoned so easily its quest for extra capital. Perhaps, on the other hand, there is some commitment from the Liberal party or the government that it will obtain its capital through some other procedure.


William Warren Allmand: I wish it were so.


Frank Howard: One wonders why the company wishes to have the word "Eagle" incorporated in its name when in its world wide operations under the aegis of various subsidiaries, it so seldom uses that word in its name. In that connection it may be interesting to note the names of the company's various subsidiaries. In Britain they are, The Army, Navy and General Assurance Association Ltd., British Crown Assurance Corporation, Ltd; Eagle Insurance Co. Ltd.; Home and Overseas Insurance Co. Ltd.; City of London Insurance Co. Ltd.; Jacksons of Wandsworth Ltd.; Liverpool Reversionary Co. Ltd.; Midland Assurance Ltd.; Navigators and General Insurance Co, Ltd.; Philatelic Insurance Ltd.,; Premier Motor Insurance Co. Ltd.; Removers and General Insurance Co. Ltd.; Shipowners' Security Insurance Co. Ltd.; Theatres Mutual Insurance Co. Ltd.; Thread-needle Insurance Co, Ltd.; Trent Insurance Co. Ltd.; Western Star Insurance Co. Ltd.;
In Australia the subsidiary is called Eagle Star Nominees Ltd.; in the Bahamas it is

Sceptre Trust Ltd.; in Barbados it is Barbados Fire Insurance Company; in Canada it is British Northwestern Insurance Co., and Security National Insurance Co.; in Jamaica it is British Caribbean Insurance Co. Ltd.; in Nigeria it is Nigerian Eagle Insurance Limited; in Zambia it is Zambian Eagle Insurance Co., Ltd.; in South Africa there are four subsidiaries, British African Properties Ltd., S.A.F. House Ltd., South African Eagle Insurance Co., Ltd., and Threedneedle Properties (S.A.) Ltd.
It is interesting to note that only in few instances does the word "Eagle" occur in the names of any of these subsidiaries. It is, therefore, difficult to follow the company's reasoning, when it says that the word "Eagle" included in the company's name is in some way valuable to that company.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
This company, with its almost innumerable subsidiaries, operates all over the world. It has connections, directly and indirectly, through joint ownership, with other ventures. This raises something we should look at very seriously, Mr. Speaker, in this country, the conglomeration or agglomeration of companies that work one with the other. These companies get involved in all sorts of activities through stock promotion deals, draining off resources of subsidiary companies of which they get control. The purpose of this control is not to provide goods and services properly, but to develop a greater amount of control over larger sections of our economy. We should not give any effect to that purpose, even though in this bill the company simply requests a change of name.
This is a company which is foreign owned, foreign dominated and foreign controlled. I think this company, which has all the traditions of Britain behind, it would be overjoyed to become a Canadian company in the full sense of the word. In fact, the sponsor of the bill gave some recognition to the necessity of companies being Canadian owned. He gave recognition to the value of it being nothing less in a publicity or propaganda sense. He pointed out this company invests in Canada and most of the personnel and directors are Canadian. Why did he say that, apart from the fact that it may be true? I do not think the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand), and others who sponsor bills respecting foreign owned companies, make such statements out of recognition of the fact that there is growing in this nation a stronger demand to gain control over our economic
April 18/ 1969



affairs and activities. People who say these are Canada Canadian companies, with most of the directors and personnel Canadians, do so in an attempt to cater to the growing feeling of nationalism in relation to the control of our economy. These statements are not really sincere because they are not followed by any sort of action.
I stated yesterday when dealing with the bill respecting the Transcoastal Assurance Company that we should commend the proceedings of the committee which dealt with this bill to all sponsors of private bills relating to insurance, trust, loan or other types of companies involved in monetary or economic activities in the nation. They could read in the committee proceedings what one gentleman voluntarily decided. This gentleman represented a company that wanted to establish itself in Canada. Before the bill was even introduced, this company voluntarily offered to write into the piece of legislation those guarantees which, over a period of years, would ensure that the company would become Canadian owned. Regretfully, there was a section in the insurance act which confined that request and desire, but none the less the desire was there in the first place.
If Eagle Star Insurance Company, British Northwestern Insurance Company or whatever its name is or will be or whoever the parent owners are, will say to the Canadian people the company will become Canadian owned within a period of time considered reasonable to phase out their operations, then it will be accepted by Canadians everywhere. If the company is reluctant or refuses to do that, I must maintain the position I have maintained all along, namely this parliament should not give any endorsement to a company with that sort of structure remaining foreign owned. We should no longer sell ourselves out by endorsing the concept of continuation of foreign ownership. We should start to reverse this trend. I do not expect this proposition will fall on receptive ears within the Liberal Party. We know they have been sell-out artists for years. The situation was not altered even in those years they were out of office.
I wish to read a few words by Mr. Douglas Thornsjo, legal counsel representing the proposed Transcoastal Life Assurance Company. Mr. Thornsjo appeared before the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs on March 20 of this1 year.
Private Bills
Among a number of other declarations, he said:
We feel that the growth of the Canadian business, particularly in terms of numbers of people serviced through our group contracts, sir, warrant Canadian participation initially in and, ultimately, ownership of this company. We sense a widespread feeling in Canada that residents and citizens here might prefer to deal with their own companies rather than with foreign companies no matter how good, if you will permit me to say so, the foreign company might be.
I think we feel that we are going to be able to do a better job in Canada with a part ownership-a partnership, if you will-than we can as an outside company that comes in, being wholly owned outside the nation, and tries to do business with Canadians. It is a matter of judgment and I am not sure our judgment is right.
Would the bon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace, who is now reading the paper very carefully, disagree with that contention of Mr. Thornsjo? Would he object to that as being a guide line for corporate activity in this country? I suppose there is no point pursuing the matter any further. The hon. member is deeply engrossed in a newspaper and obviously not interested in the matter of Canadian ownership.


William Warren Allmand: I am interested in Canadian ownership, but not in the nonsense coming from the other side.


Frank Howard: Speak up, I did not
hear you.


William Warren Allmand: I am interested in Canadian ownership, not the nonsense from the other side which I have already heard 10 or 11 times.


Frank Howard: Let me quote Mr. Thornsjo's words to you. He is the legal counsel representing the Transcoastal Life Assurance Company.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. I understand the hon. member's time has expired.


Frank Howard: With respect, Mr. Speaker, there must have been seven or eight minutes of my time consumed by spurious points of order by the hon. member opposite.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: I
understand a few minutes were taken into account in determining that the hon. member's time had expired. If the house agrees, the hon. member's time can be prolonged beyond the time allotted by the rules of the house. Is there unanimous consent?

April 18, 1969
Private Bills


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


An hon. Member:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: I think I heard at least one negative response.


John Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, Bill S-9 is the bill before us at the moment. I was rather disappointed to hear a negative voice from the government side. As a result the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) is not permitted to continue the very thorough and intellectual remarks he has been making. He wanted to respond to the remark by the sponsor of the bill who said he had beard nonsense from this side of the house on the question of Canadian ownership. This bill was introduced ini the fall of last year. In the month of December, I had the opportunity to speak to it. At that time I set forth our objections with regard to the problem of the name, the problem of foreign ownership and other related matters.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
The bill came up for debate again in February of this year and one of my colleagues moved an amendment that it be not read a second time then but that it be read a second time six months hence. We are now directing our remarks to that amendment.
When I hear the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand), for whom I have a high respect in so many other matters, say that the members of this party have spoken nonsense on the question of foreign ownership it makes me realize how necessary it was for the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) to present this amendment. The presentation of the amendment permits us to attempt to convince him of the strength and clarity of our position in the hope that he and other hon. members will adopt the approach which the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) was putting forth at the time bis remarks were interrupted.
The hon. member for Skeena was pointing out that Transcoastal Insurance Company, an American owned company, made an application to conduct insurance business in Canada and gave an opportunity to Canadians to participate in the ownership of that company. We, on this side of the house, welcomed that application. We gave it our blessing. The bill went to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs where it was given a thorough hearing on the question of ownership, and after being returned to the house was given quick passage yesterday on report stage and third reading.
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard).]
I would have thought that the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace would have wanted to hear the remarks made by counsel for Transcoastal Insurance Company concerning the attitude of that company to the right of Canadians to participate in the ownership of companies doing business in Canada, Canadians from whom premiums are obtained, from whom profits are made, and with whom some of the profits should be shared.


William Warren Allmand: The hon. member has referred to the company whose bill received third reading yesterday and said that before the standing committee the officials of that company made some important declarations with respect to ownership of the company. Would the hon. member be willing to let this bill get second reading so that the officials of this company could go before the committee and answer all fthe questions he might wish to put regarding foreign ownership? Wouldn't he think that would be a good thing?


John Gilbert: If the hon. member had made that suggestion when he introduced this bill I would have endorsed it heartily.


William Warren Allmand: I did make it.


John Gilbert: I am talking about the suggestion that at the time the application was made the company might have considered the right of Canadians1 to participate in its ownership. Had that been done, had the hon. member committed himself and the company to the proposition that Canadians have the right to participate in the ownership of a company which plans to do business in Canada, we would not be discussing this bill this afternoon.
But the hon. member has not made that commitment. He prefers to have us give second reading to this bill, and he expects us to persuade the officials of the company to change their ways and their philosophy when we deal with them in the standing committee. The hon. member has had sufficient time to contact the petitioners, but in the interim I have heard no response from them concerning this ownership question.
This is really a twofold application. One is to change the name of the company from British Northwestern Insurance Company to Eagle Star Insurance Company of Canada and in French, Eagle Star Compagnie d'Assurance du Canada. The second application is to increase the capital stock of the company from $2 million divided into 50,000 shares- of $40 each to $5 million divided into 125,000 shares of $40 each.
April 18, 1969

The horn, member for Skeena has pointed out that this company is completely owned by a British Company called Eagle Star, and that Eagle Star has operated in Canada under the British and Canadian Insurance Companies Act using the name British Northwestern Insurance Company.
The hon. member for Skeena also gave a long list of names of companies' which the parent company owns, not only in England and in Europe but in other parts of the world. He has pointed out that it is a vertical conglomeration not only with regard to life insurance but, probably with regard to fire insurance and other forms of insurance.
In December last year I questioned the proposed change of name from British Northwestern Insurance Company, which to me has all the flavour of an English name, and has all the strength, meaning tradition and custom that are contained in the word British. Eagle Star to me denotes an eagle, the emblem which represents the United States and which is on its coins and other insignia; and star is part of the Stars and Stripes of the United States flag. I also referred at that time to the Red Star of Russia.


An hon. Member:: And there is the Star of Bethlehem.


John Gilbert: And the Star of Bethlehem, which almost gives it a religious flavour. I appreciate that interruption because it indicates that there may be an attempt on the part of this company to tell the Canadian people that it is not an English owned company but an American owned company. I would not like to think of the people in Ontario, in the west, and especially in Quebec being misled with regard to the ownership of this company by a mere change of name from British Northwestern Insurance Company to Eagle Star Insurance. If the petitioners were really serious about the change in name they would carry the idea through to the names of the other companies which they own. As the hon. member for Skeena pointed out, in the long list of companies that he gave there is the Army and Navy Insurance Company.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
I notice the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Cadieux) is with us this afternoon and is listening very attentively to the debate. I am sure if we were considering the Army, Navy and General Insurance Company he would be the first one to oppose any change to Eagle Star because he knows what Army and Navy
Private Bills
stands for; it has a tradition. It is a name worthy of remembering. Here, we have a sort of planned attempt by this company to change a name like British Northwestern Insurance Company to a name which has a United States tone, Eagle Star Insurance Company. I, for one, as a member of this house resist the change of name if it is an attempt to fool the Canadian public that it is now to be United States owned rather than British owned. That was the substance of the first remark I made on another occasion.
Then, I went into the question of foreign ownership. I pointed out that great Canadians like Walter Gordon had made the Canadian public aware of the increasing penetration of foreign ownership in Canada. We have had a strong example of this in respect of insurance companies,


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not wish to be overly persist-tent, but as I pointed out with regard to the previous speaker it is my understanding we are now speaking to an amendment moved by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) on February 6. The member who is now speaking to this bill keeps on referring to what he said during the previous debate. He is repeating himself and not speaking to the amendment. I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that he speak to the amendment rather than to the motion to which he has already spoken.


Frank Howard: If I might be permitted1 to speak to the point of order, Mr. Speaker, I only do so because from my memory Your Honour was not in the Chair at the time the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand) raised this point of order in respect of myself.


An hon. Member:: Equally valid.


Frank Howard: I understood that the deputy speaker at that time made a ruling to the effect that the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace in fact did not have a point of order and referred the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace to some particular citations or documents which he should study in order that he would appreciate more clearly just what is involved in debating a bill of this nature. I think Your Honour would probably come to the same view and substantiate what the deputy speaker said earlier.


Mr. Speaker:: In respect of the point of order raised by the hon. member, the Chair feels it is bound by the ruling made earlier this afternoon by the Chair, whatever that

April 18, 1969
Private Bills
rixling was. Hon. members heard it and I am sure would want to abide by the decision of the Chair at that time. Looking at the matter in a particular way, it is not within the rules of the house to repeat the substance of a speech which has been made before. It is certainly not in accordance with proper, traditional and customary parliamentary debate to use an amendment that the bill be not read a second time, but be read six months hence, as an opportunity to repeat a speech which has been made previously. Clearly, the rules do not allow this.
I am not one of those who was fortunate enough to hear the hon. member's earlier speech, so I am in a 'difficult position to say whether there has been a repetition. The hon. member would have to be guided in this respect by his conscience. I refer, of course, to his parliamentary conscience.


John Gilbert: I was sure you were referring to my parliamentary conscience, Mr. Speaker. I have not had an opportunity to refresh my memory with regard to just what I did say in detail some time in December. I was attempting not only to refresh my memory but to refresh the memory of some of the members who had the delight of hearing me back in December of last year, and more especially the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace because he is a very keen, intellectual type who picks up points very quickly. The only reason I referred to that speech was to refresh his memory. I shall refrain from referring to the speech I made on the last occasion. I shall dwell on this name of Eagle Star Insurance Company and the increase in capitalization.
I had said I am one who would like to resist the change from British Northwestern Insurance to Eagle Star because of the possible attempt by the company to give a United States flavour or name to this company which is wholly owned by British interests. While the hon. member for Skeena was addressing himself to the point of order, I had an opportunity to look again at some of the names of the companies this Eagle Star Insurance Company Limited of London owns. I already referred to the Army and Navy Insurance Company. I notice they own the Midland Insurance Company, which again is an English name. They have the British Caribbean Insurance Company and the Threadnee-dle Insurance Company. Any person with any knowledge of English history knows the word "Threadneedle" has a special meaning with regard to English history and more especially

with regard to English finance. I would think that if this company, Eagle Star Insurance Company Limited, were about to change the names of all its companies, it would do so first with regard to some of these companies which are contained within its own borders rather than come across the seas to Canada and attempt to change a great name like British Northwestern Insurance Company.
If my friend! at this time can assure me that this company intends to change all the names of the subsidiaries it owns1 to the name Eagle Star, and give the full meaning to the name Eagle Star and possibly the connotation that it is United States owned, I might be persuaded that this change of name is one which is made ini good faith rather than in an attempt to mislead Canadians concerning ownership.
I am sure, Mr. Speaker, you will give me a few more minutes because of the problems I have encountered from members on the other side concerning points of order. I intend to discuss the more important subject of insurance. I happened to get a book from the library which was on the reading list sent to members of the house. I think we should compliment the staff of the library for sending to members the lists of books that are new and which are in the library. I saw the name of a book called the "Mortality Merchants". My first thought was that maybe these were munitions makers. The summary of the book, written by a man named G. Scott Reynolds, indicates it deals in detail with insurance companies. The book deals with the activities of companies in the field of insurance. I have had an opportunity to read about 50 pages of this most fascinating book.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
The author sets forth some of the problems' insurance companies and policy holders have in understanding insurance. I should like to tell the members of this' house, and recommend to them, that the reading of-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have some doubt as to whether the hon. member is entirely m order in directing the attention of hon. members of the house to his reading habits, suggesting that they should be adopted by other hon. members. What we are now dealing with is a change of name. Certainly, the hon. member's references to insurance laws generally are entirely irrelevant so far as this bill is concerned.
April 18, 1969


John Gilbert: I appreciate your remarks, Mr. Speaker, but I should like to point out to Your Honour that we are dealing with two things; a change in names, and a change in capitalization. I think Your Honour might be confusing this matter with another application before the house to change only the name of a company. I would think that insurance generally might be discussed in respect of this capitalization aspect.
I might say that I have only read 50 pages of this1 book, and I am not in a position to emphasize the impact of its content.


An hon. Member:: Then sit down and) read it.


John Gilbert: I will defer any further remarks in this regard to another occasion.


Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: should like to speak briefly on the bill now before the house. We are dealing with an amendment that the bill be read six months hence. Let me give my reasons for supporting this motion to hoist the bill for six months. Before doing so, I should like to suggest that the sponsor of this bill made some unwarranted remarks in respect of hon. members in this house. There was no need for this type of action at this time. He suggested that members on this side of the house were talking nonsense when debating the fundamental issues facing this house and the country. If the member thinks we are stating nonsense, I Should like to assure him that the members of this party and the public of Canada are continually reaching the conclusion that bills of this kind represent nothing but nonsense.


William Warren Allmand: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Randolph Harding: Certainly.


William Warren Allmand: If this bill is: as important as the hon. member suggests, will he tell the house whether he was present on other occasions when this bill was debated in the house and talked out by members of his party? Was he present and did he participate in those debates?


Randolph Harding: Mr. Speaker, I understand this bill came up in December. I was certainly here at that time.


William Warren Allmand: You are wrong.


Randolph Harding: Do you mean to say that this bill was not debated in December last year?


William Warren Allmand: And in February.
Private Bills


Randolph Harding: I was in the house when the debates took place.


William Warren Allmand: That's good.


Randolph Harding: This bill may have come to the floor of the house prior to that, but I have no knowledge in that regard because I was not a member. In any event, I suggest it is improper for any member to state that we are talking nonsense. Let me ask you a question. Perhaps you will get up in this House of Commons and tell us and the Canadian people what you are trying to do to the economy of Canada by permitting and sponsoring these insurance bills which cause us to lose control of more of our economy. We have every right to stand in our places in this chamber and protest against the action of individual members of the government party who sponsor these bills. I should like to ask the hon. member a question, and I hope he gets on his feet to answer.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Blair:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Let me remind the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding) that he is quite out of order at this time in that he should address his remarks to the chair. I now recognize the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Blair) on a question of privilege.


Duncan Gordon Blair: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has raised a subject which I think affects the privileges of all hon. members of this house. Hon. members sponsor private bills from time to time. Regardless of the privileges of this chamber, hon. members should not cast aspersions in respect of the motives of other hon. members. Nothing derogatory should be suggested about the reasons behind the sponsorship of bills in this chamber. It is my submission there is a grave reflection in respect of the privileges of all of us in those words uttered by the hon. member.


Frank Howard: I should like to say a word or two about this question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps there is an element of value in what I have to say in view of the fact that the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton did not move rapidly from his seat. Perhaps he is staying because I correctly identified his constituency, and I must admit that I have made a mistake on other occasions.

April 18, 1969
Private Bills
Usually an hon. member who sponsors a private bill in this house gets up on his feet to advocate or endorse the measure. Certainly, in respect of this bill which deals with ownership, we are justified as members of parliament in questioning the sponsor or the member endorsing the bill. In view of the attitude adopted by hon. members on the other side of this chamber, we are right in assuming that those members are advocating foreign ownership. As a result of the remarks of the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand), I assume he endorses this concept of foreign ownership in respect of insurance companies.
For the reasons I have outlined, I do not think we in the opposition can be criticized for taking this position as individual members. Surely, there is no question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: The point raised by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton is justified to the extent that personal aspersions should not be cast in respect of hon. members. However, that is not my understanding or interpretation of the objection taken to the words uttered by the hon. member for Kootenay West. I understood that the hon. member was referring only to the parliamentary responsibility of members. I did not understand him to suggest that anything which should not be done by a member was in fact being done. I did not understand that he was casting personal aspersions. For that reason, I do not think the hon. member is justified in his belief that he has been offended by the remarks of the hon. member for Kootenay West.


Randolph Harding: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I assure you and hon. members of this house that there was no personal reflection intended in anything I said. We have every right to criticize parliamentary functions, and I intend to criticize them. I should like to thank you, Mr. Speaker, for requesting the members to direct their questions through you. This is the way it is done in this house, so I direct this question through you to the hon. member sponsoring the bill. Is it nonsense for us to stand up and speak out for the retention of Canadian control of our financial institutions? Is it nonsense and un-Canadian to request that Canadians regain control of some of those important sectors of our economy which have passed from our hands?
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)


William Warren Allmand: May I ask the hon. member another question, please?


Randolph Harding: Yes, certainly, if Mr. Speaker will permit it.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Kootenay West has the floor. If he allows it, then the hon. member may ask a question, but this is left entirely to the discretion of the hon. member for Kootenay West who is entitled not to be interrupted if he chooses to continue his speech without interruption.


Randolph Harding: I will permit a question, Mr. Speaker.


William Warren Allmand: The hon. member said it is his duty to speak out against the foreign control of our economy. I wonder whether he would speak out as strongly against the foreign control of some of the trade unions in Canada.


Frank Howard: I sure as hell will.


William Warren Allmand: I am asking the hon. member for Kootenay West if he will speak out as strongly against the foreign control of some of the large trade unions in this country which support his party.


Frank Howard: There is that nastiness again. Nasty, nasty, nasty.


Randolph Harding: The sponsor of this bill is obviously trying to get me to limit the remarks which I wish to make in the five minutes remaining, but I can assure him and the house that I have a number of points that I wish to raise in connection with this bill. I want to put them on the record, so I will continue to speak.
Let us revert to the so-called nonsense about which the hon. member is talking.


Frank Howard: And which he is trying to get out from under.


Randolph Harding: That is right. The former Superintendent of Insurance warned the house in his annual reports over a period of years what was happening and what could happen once we lost control of any of our financial institutions. He classed insurance companies in this very important category. It seems to me that members of this party, and other members of the house on occasion, have requested the sponsors of private bills to do their utmost with the companies involved to see if it would not be possible to bring amendments to the legislation so that we could have more Canadian control of these very institutions.
April 18, 1969

For the benefit of the house I should like to give what I think are one or two rather interesting events which have already taken place. There have been occasions when insurance companies have decided to bring in amendments on their own initiative which would give to Canadians eventual control over the insurance companies, concerning which bills which have been presented in the House of Commons by private members. I wonder if the sponsor of this bill has made this suggestion to the company. If he has, I do not know what the results were. However, I would like to read one or two brief remarks from a hearing before the Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs Committee at which a change in another insurance company was contemplated. This is what we are talking about, this is what we are urging, and this is what we are asking for. The following was said by a representative of the insurance company:
We feel that the growth of the Canadian business, particularly in terms of numbers of people serviced through our group contracts, sir, warrant Canadian participation initially in and, ultimately, ownership of this company.
There is no objection to eventual ownership or eventual control of the company by Canadians. He went on to say:
We sense a widespread feeling in Canada that residents and citizens here might prefer to deal
Private Bills
with their own companies rather than with foreign companies no matter how good, if you will permit me to say so, the foreign company might be.
That is what the hon. member calls nonsense. He went on to say:
X think we feel that we are going to be able to do a better job in Canada with a part ownership-a partnership, if you will-than we can as an outside company that comes in, being wholly owned outside the nation, and tries to do business with Canadians. It is a matter of judgment and I am not sure our judgment is right.
Here is someone sponsoring an insurance bill who is willing to make an amendment which would eventually give control of the company to Canadians, and with that control goes a huge portfolio of investment which we desperately need in Canada if we are ever going to develop our industrial potential.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sorry I have to interrupt the hon. member but I am advised that the hour set aside for the consideration of private members business has now expired.
It being five o'clock, this house stands adjourned until Monday at 2 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
At five o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
April 18, 1969


[Stage Direction]
A Canadian defence policy, employing in an effective fashion the highly skilled and professional Canadian Armed Forces, will contribute to the maintenance of world peace. It will also add to our own sense of purpose as a nation and give renewed enthusiasm and a feeling of direction to the members of the armed forces. It will provide the key to the flexible employment of Canadian forces in a way which will permit them to make their best contribution in accordance with Canada's particular needs and requirements.
The government has rejected any suggestion that Canada assume a non-aligned or neutral role in world affairs. Such an option would have meant the withdrawal by Canada from its present alliances and the termination of all co-operative military arrangements with other countries. We have decided in this fashion because we think it necessary and wise to continue to participate in an appropriate way in collective security arrangements with other states in the interests of Canada's national security and in defence of the values we share with our friends.
Canada requires armed forces within Canada in order to carry out a wide range of activities involving the defence of the country, also supplementing the civil authorities and contributing to national development. Properly equipped and deployed, our forces will provide an effective multi-purpose maritime coastal shield and they will carry out operations necessary for the defence of North American airspace in co-operation with the United States. Abroad, our forces will be capable of playing important roles in collective security and in peace-keeping activities.
The structure, equipment and training of our forces must be compatible with these roles and it is the intention of the government that they shall be. Our eventual forces will be highly mobile and will be the best-equipped and best-trained forces of their kind in the world.
The precise military role which we shall endeavour to assume in these collective arrangements will be a matter for discussion and consultation with our Allies and will depend in part on the role assigned to
Canadian forces in the surveillance of our own territory and coast lines in the interests of protecting our own sovereignty. As a responsible member of the international community, it is our desire to have forces available for peace-keeping roles as well as for participation in defensive alliances.
Canada is a partner in two collective defence arrangements which, though distinct, are complementary. These are the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the North American Air Defence Command. For twenty years NATO has contributed to the maintenance of world peace through its stabilizing influence in Europe. NATO continues to contribute to peace by reducing the likelihood of a major conflict breaking out in Europe where, because the vital interests of the two major powers are involved, any outbreak of hostilities could easily escalate into a war of world proportions. At the same time it is the declared aim of NATO to foster improvements in East-West relations.
NATO itself is continuously reassessing the role it plays in the light of changing world conditions. Perhaps the major development affecting NATO in Europe since the organization was founded is the magnificent recovery of the economic strength of Western Europe. There has been a very great change in the ability of European countries themselves to provide necessary conventional defence forces and armaments to be deployed by the alliance in Europe.
It was, therefore, in our view entirely appropriate for Canada to review and reexamine the necessity in present circumstances for maintaining Canadian forces in Western Europe. Canadian forces are now committed to NATO until the end of the present year. The Canadian force commitment for deployment with NATO in Europe beyond this period will be discussed with our allies at the meeting of the Defence Planning Committee of NATO in May. The Canadian Government intends, in consultation with Canada's allies, to take early steps to bring about a planned and phased reduction of the size of the Canadian forces in Europe.
April 18, 1969
[Stage Direction]
We intend as well to continue to co-operate effectively with the United States in the defence of North America. We shall accordingly seek early occasions for detailed discussions with the United States Government of the whole range of problems involved in our mutual co-operation in defence matters in this continent. To the extent that it is feasible we shall endeavour to have those activities within Canada which are essential to North American defence performed by Canadian forces.
In summary, Canada will continue to be a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and to co-operate closely with the United States within NORAD and in other ways in defensive arrangements. We shall maintain appropriate defence forces which
will be designed to undertake the following roles:
(a)	the surveillance of our own territory and coast lines, i.e., the protection of our sovereignty;
(b)	the defence of North America in cooperation with United States forces;
(c)	the fulfilment of such NATO commitments as may be agreed upon; and
(d)	the performance of such international peacekeeping roles as we may, from time to time, assume.
The kind of forces and armaments most suitable for these roles is now being assessed in greater detail in preparation for discussion with our Allies.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, April 21, 1969


[Stage Direction]
Seventeenth 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.]