1969-04-21

Mr. Bernard Dumont (Frontenac):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.
During the meeting of the committee on agriculture in Winnipeg, held on April 18 in the Monarch Life Building, the chairman of the committee tried by devious means to stop the opposition from making itself heard.
As I wanted to ask, in the presence of the representatives of the Wheat Pool, the Saskatchewan Wheat Board and the Western Farmers, that the Winnipeg Grain Exchange which is exploiting Canadian farmers be abolished, the chairman of that committee denied me the right to speak.
So I submit that this committee should resume that sitting, in Ottawa, with all the representatives who were in Winnipeg attending, to prevent this time the use of such devious means.
I put forward this proposal in order to know the true exploiters in the grain trade.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Sixth report of Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates-Mr. Fernand-E. Leblanc (Laurier).
[Editor's Note: The text of the foregoing report appears in today's Votes and Proceedings]

Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table the joint communique of the fifth meeting of the Canada-Japan ministerial committee and to report very briefly to the
house on the very useful meetings which were held in Tokyo last week.
This ministerial committee is not a negotiating body but rather a means whereby ministers from the two countries can from time to time exchange views on the full range of bilateral relations between Canada and Japan, as well as on the international situation. The fact that Japan is Canada's third largest trading partner, now competing for second place, is in itself sufficient reason for periodic and high level discussions between Canadian ministers and their Japanese counterparts.
The need for and the utility of these meetings is enhanced by the increasingly close co-operation between Canada and Japan in political and other fields, both bilaterally and in all the major international organizations to which we both belong. Most of all however the meetings form an important part of Canada's role as a Pacific as well as an Atlantic country, and they also reflect the growing Canadian activities throughout the Pacific area.
I have taken part in three meetings of this committee in different capacities and, in my view, the one just completed is the most useful to date, in large part due to the increasing easiness of discussions over a broad range of subjects. This is not to suggest that we found a complete identity of views with the Japanese. We did not, and, where we differed, we both made clear where our differences lay. On bilateral matters, for example, as you will see from the communique, the Canadian ministers spoke with some vigour about certain Japanese trade restrictions which are causing difficulties for some Canadian exports. But one advantage of these meetings is to enable ministers to speak directly with their Japanese opposite numbers on matters which are of great concern to Canada.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)
In addition to expressing my satisfaction over the quality of the discussions, both formal and informal, which we held with our Japanese colleagues, I should like to express our thanks for the warm and generous hospitality offered by our hosts. We were able to visit certain areas outside the capital and to

April 21. 1969
External Affairs
get some impression of the cultural and industrial aspects of Japan. We visited the site of Expo '70 at Osaka and saw the Canadian pavilion, its outward structure now almost completed, and the pavilions of British. Columbia, Ontario and Quebec. The extent of Canadian participation in this world exhibition, and the fact that our visit coincided with a tour of Japan by the Toronto Symphony Orchestra are, I believe, further indications of the broadening and deepening of our relations.
It is of interest that a special newspaper supplement marking the visit was issued on the day our meetings began. The relationship between Canada and Japan is, I am convinced, a relationship which contains great mutual benefits and1 which in itself makes some contribution to stability and economic development in Asia and the Pacific region.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Roy-al: Mr. Speaker, sometimes while we are preoccupied with other parts of the world we in Canada forget how important Japan is in the far east. I am sure the minister's visit there was of importance. I am thinking of joint efforts we shall make with the United States and Japan to conserve the north Pacific fishery. There will also, I hope, be an increase, particularly in coal and wheat, in our trade with Japan. If Expo '70 at Osaka is anywhere near as good as Expo '67 at Montreal was, the Japanese will do well.
A strong Japan taking its part in world international affairs is of increasing importance to Canada. I welcome the minister's statement therefore, and welcome his return along with that of his colleagues.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure all hon. members welcome back our delegation from Japan. I expect most of us have seen some of the television shots of the delegation having tea with the geisha girls. I hope the Prime Minister will arrange for us to have a report of the extracurricular activities of the delegation, which may be more interesting than the report of their official visit.


Mr. Baldwin:: And less bland, probably.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: The
Prime Minister is jealous.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I hope the Secretary of State for External Affairs and other members of the

committee are planning at an early date to give the house more information than is contained in the minister's communique which has just been tabled. We shall be interested to know something about discussions touching on Viet Nam, in which the Canadian and the Japanese governments expressed the hope of seeing an early peace settlement.
I also hope we shall obtain further information showing whether both governments, the Canadian and Japanese, are prepared to take steps in promoting a peaceful settlement in Viet Nam. We shall be particularly interested in hearing the Secretary of State for External Affairs tell us at an early date about Japanese reactions to Canada's intention to recognize the Peking administration. A news release from Tokyo carried last Saturday in the Montreal Gazette says in so many words that the question of opening diplomatic relations with Peking will be discussed separately from the question of Chinese representation at the United Nations. Frankly I do not quite know what that means. Does that mean, and I should welcome hearing an explanation about this, that although the Canadian government contemplates recognizing the Peking regime it will not lend its support to the idea of having mainland China become a member of the United Nations.
The communique just tabled says that both governments are in favour of strengthening the International Grains Arrangement. I hope the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) will tell the house whether the Canadian delegation had any success in securing some markets for Canadian wheat. Most members know that, during the time the United States was selling below the International Grains Arrangement price floor, a very large part of the Japanese market went to the United States.
I hope the government can give some assurance that there is a distinct possibility we can regain that market. I also hope the minister will be able to tell us whether he had any success in reaching an agreement with Japan to allow Canadian rapeseed into Japan on the same basis that United States soyabeans are admitted, because we are operating at a great disadvantage in this market.
I trust that by a statement on motions or in some other form we will have a report at an early date from each of the ministers regarding discussions that took place, and the conclusions reached.
April 21. 1969


Mr. Real Caouelle (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, we are happy to hear from the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) that the Canadian mission to Japan has been fruitful.
Having visited Japan myself in January, I noticed that trade agreements1, co-operation and goodwill between Canada and Japan could be quite beneficial to our country.
During my trip, I noticed that the Japanese citizen was practising what President Kennedy said and repeated: Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.
Japan has a population of 100 million inhabitants. It is a populous country but not that much compared with other great countries.
Despite that, it is developing at an incredible speed in every field of economic activity.
The Canadian ministers must have realized that the more relations we have with Japan, the more we will benefit from them. I sincerely believe that we have everything to gain by having more contacts with that country than we may have had with certain European countries in the past, because we have more to learn from Japan than from Europe, from every point of view. I suggest that our commercial and cultural relations with Japan must be improved.
I have also noticed that the ministers discussed just about everything with their Japanese counterparts during their stay in that country. They discussed the wheat trade, for example, and I felt at a certain point, while I was in western Canada, that the five, six or seven ministers sent to Japan could have liquidated the actual wheat surplus in the western provinces and shipped a good part of it to those who need it, particularly to Japan.
Mr. Speaker, we are happy to see that Canada is taking the necessary steps to initiate and maintain closer and more extensive relations with Japan, and I am convinced that our two countries will greatly benefit from it.
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)



PUBLIC ACCOUNTS


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington) moved: that the third report of the Standing Committee
Public Accounts
on Public Accounts, presented to the house on Thursday, April 17, 1969, be concurred in.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion, without qualification, merely to ask whether this does not present parliament, and particularly the Committee on Procedure, which has among its: membership the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald), the government house leader, with an opportunity to take a careful look at the staff which is being made available to all parliamentary committees.
If I am interpreting things correctly, then obviously the Public Accounts Committee found unsatisfactory the evidence which it was able to obtain from other sources, and has now decided it needs witnesses of its choosing in order to get all the information in a proper way. I think this is true of all committees. My remarks are not directed at any particular minister or any particular side of the house. I rise merely to underline my disappointment as a member of parliament that we have not made a great deal more progress on the idea of providing all parliamentary committees with the research, investigatory and other staff necessary to make the committees much more adequate and productive than they can be under present circumstances.


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, in response to the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) I would point out that the Procedure Committee, as his colleague the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) will readily admit, agreed to determine its own order of priorities in proceeding with the various references before it, and the committee did not choose to put this question at the head of its agenda.
I believe I can speak on behalf of all members of that committee in saying we will be proceeding with the question of research assistance, among other matters; but it was felt by members of the committee that there was a pressing priority for the question of accommodation, and the reporting and transcription facilities of committees as a first order of priority, and it is with these that the committee has been dealing.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
April 21, 1969
Questions


[Stage Direction]
On the order:	Government notices of
motion:
April 17

The Prime Minister-The following proposed motion:-That this house supports the government's policy of continued Canadian participation in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the intention of the government, in consultation with Canada's allies, to take early steps to bring about a planned and phased reduction of the size of Canadian Forces in Europe.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to section 2 of Standing Order 21 this government notice of motion is transferred to and ordered for consideration under government orders at the next sitting of the house.



QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER

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

Mr. Coates: 1.	How many Canadian citizens have been informed they were not eligible to enter competitions for positions with the Public Service Commission because they were unilingual since April 8, 1963?
2.	Of the number disqualified from competitions who submitted applications, because they were unilingual, how many were French speaking and how many were English speaking?
3.	Of the number disqualified from entering competitions, how many were employees of the Public Service of Canada and how many were endeavouring to secure employment with the Public Service of Canada?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: I am informed by the Public Service Commission as follows: 1. The information requested is not available from the records of the Public Service Commission.
2.	See 1 above.
3.	See 1 above.


CORPORAL PUNISHMENT IN N.W.T. AND YUKON SCHOOLS
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Is corporal punishment of pupils permitted in the schools in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon?

2.	If so, is the policy formulated by any federal department or is it decided on in each school?
3.	What type of corporal punishment is permitted -a strap, ruler, or what other form?
4.	Who administers the corporal punishment- the teacher or the principal?
5.	Are records kept as to the number of times corporal punishment is administered?
6.	Have complaints been received, by the department regarding excessive use of corporal punishment, from parents or teachers and, if so, what action was taken by the department to investigate or correct the situation?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1. In
both the Yukon Territory and Northwest Territories, limited corporal punishment is permitted.
2.	This department does not formulate corporal punishment policy in the Yukon. Rather, the territorial government, in conjunction with the school administrators, set the policy. In the Northwest Territories policy is formulated in accordance with the N.W.T. School Ordinance and Regulations, in consultation with the school principals.
3.	A correction strap is permitted.
4.	In the Yukon, corporal punishment may be administered by either the principal or teacher, but only in the presence of the principal and with his permission. In the Northwest Territories, either the principal or the teacher may administer the punishment.
5.	There is a laid down policy for recording corporal punishment in the Mackenzie District. Although there is no over-all requirement for records to be kept in either the Arctic district or the Yukon, individual schools do maintain such records.
6.	No complaints have been received by the Department with regard to the Yukon. In the Mackenzie District two complaints have been received in the past seven years; both complaints were investigated, and in each case the teacher involved in the incident received a reprimand. In the Arctic District one complaint was received from a teacher regarding another teacher who allegedly struck children in the classroom. This complaint was investigated by the District Superintendent of Schools, the Regional Superintendent of Schools, and by a representative of the Northwest Territories Teachers' Association; however, the allegations were not adequately substantiated.
April 21, 1969


ORIENTATION COURSE FOR N.W.T. AND YUKON TEACHERS
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Is there an orientation course for teachers going to teach in the Yukon or Northwest Territories?
2.	If so, how long, does this course last?
3.	Who were the teachers at last year's orientation course and what were their qualifications and training for the course?
4.	What courses were offered at the orientation course?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 1. Yes.
2.	A three-day institute for new teachers is held in the Yukon Territory each year prior to school opening. Orientation courses lasting from one to two weeks are also held for teachers newly appointed to schools in the Arctic and Mackenzie Districts of the Northwest Territories.
3.	The instructors at last year's Yukon orientation course were: Dr. E. Cutler, Kindergarten and Elementary School Methods Specialist, University of Alberta; Professor A. Renaud, Specialist in Anthropology, University of Saskatchewan; Professor E. Moore, Department of Curriculum and Instruction, Faculty of Education, University of Calgary; Miss M. Morris, Language Arts Specialist, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development; Dr. S. Morris, Associate Professor, Faculty of Education, University of Calgary; A. E. Johnson, Supervisor of Elementary Instruction, Fernie, B.C.; Mr. K. Clark, Specialist in Elementary Education, Cassiar, B.C.
The following instructors participated in orientation courses held for teachers newly appointed to the Northwest Territories: Professor A. V. Parminter, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Education, University of British Columbia; Professor D. Stevenson, Lecturer in Anthropology and Sociology, University of Victoria; Professor L. Marckworth, Depart-
Questions
ment of General Linguistics, University of Alberta; Dr. W. F. Mackey, Linguistics Specialist, Laval University; Dr. Verdoort, Linguistics Specialist, Laval University.
These groups of lecturers were augmented by school superintendents, teacher consultants, curriculum specialists and other employees of the Territorial and Federal Governments.
4.	Courses for Yukon teachers were allocated according to kindergarten, primary, intermediate and secondary sectionals providing instruction on teaching methods. In addition all teachers attended lectures and discussions on understanding the native child and his culture. Courses offered at the Northwest Territories orientation programs included workshops in teaching English as a second language; problems of cross-cultural value orientations; elementary and secondary school teaching methods; the role of the teacher in the north, and cultural inclusion.


CURRICULUM DEPARTMENT IN INDIAN AFFAIRS SCHOOLS DIVISION
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Is there a Curriculum Department in the school division of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development?
2.	If so, how many people are employed in the Department, what are their qualifications and how long have they been with the Department?
3.	How many books for use in the North have been devised since the Department was established?
4. What liaison is there between the Department and the teachers in the field who are in close touch with the actual learning problems of Indian and Eskimo students?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 1. There is at present a residual component of the Curriculum Section of the former Northern education service, Ottawa headquarters, which now includes a Head and four specialists.
2.	Qualifications and experience of these persons are as follows:
Position
Head
Specialist
Specialist
Specialist
Specialist
Qualifications
B. Ed., B.A., M.Ed., M.A. plus former teacher, principal, superintendent B. Ed., M.A., plus former teacher, principal, superintendent
B.A. plus former teacher, principal, superintendent
B.A., B.L.S. former teacher, principal
co. 4 year training, former teacher, supervisor
Tenure with Department
2J years
11 years
91 years 71 years 12J years

April 21, 1969
Questions
3.	The Curriculum Section was started in 1956 with a staff of two. Eventually publication became one of its ten main functions.
4.	This service has involved the printing and distribution departmentally of reports and experimental courses and materials-all intended for northern use. Printed materials to date number 67 titles.
5.	Curriculum development has been combined with teaching staff development. Individual teachers and teacher committees have been involved in materials preparation, use, appraisal, and revision. Contacts between curriculum specialists and teaching staff have been maintained through community visits, workshops, conferences, bulletins, and direct correspondence.


INVESTIGATION OF INCIDENTS AND DISTURBANCES
Mr. Robinson: 1.	How many incidents and/or disturbances have been investigated by the federal government during each of the years 1960-68 inclusive?
2.	How many bombing and/or blasts of buildings, armories, mail boxes and others have taken place in Canada during each of the years 1960-68 inclusive (a) where did each bombing and/or blast take place (b) how much damage was caused in each incident (c) how many people were either killed or injured as a result of each incident?
3.	Does the federal government have a special force or detachment to deal with the bombing and/or blast problems and, if not, will the government consider setting up such a special detachment or force?


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Solicitor General):: In so far as it relates to the Department of the Solicitor General, is	as follows:	1.1960/61,	375,358;	1961/62,	398,897;	1962/63,439,712;	1963/64,	563,766;	1964/65,	658,188;1965/66,	671,342;	1966/67,	714,795;	1967/68,
798,582; 1968 (Apr. 1st to Dec. 31 only), 19,417.
2.	As this is a matter which falls within provincial jurisdiction, the Department of the Solicitor General has a record only, of those incidents which occurred in provinces, wherein, the R.C.M. Police are under contract to provide policing services.
3.	The Department of the Solicitor General has no special force or detachment to deal with the bombing and/or blast problems.



SUPPLY AND SERVICES DEPUTY MINISTERS

['(Supplementary)\n1.\tIn each of the latest ten years for which figures are available, how much was paid to farmers in subsidies and other forms of assistance by the federal government (a) in Canada, and (b) by provinces?\n2.\tWhat was the gross income of farmers for those same ten years (a) in Canada, and (b) by provinces?\n3.\tWhat was the total number of farmers for those same ten years (a) in Canada, and (b) by provinces?\nReturn tabled.']
Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Defence Production):: 1. (a) One; (b) G. W. Hunter; (c) English.
2.	(a) Three; (b) J. S. Glassford, R. M. Keith, W. H. Huck; (c) English.
3.	(a) As of the date of the question the Queen's Printer had the rank of Deputy Minister in the Department of Public Printing and Stationery. He has since been appointed as Special Adviser to the Minister of Supply and Services; (b) In accordance with the recommendations of the Task Force Report (T.B. Minute 685-054 of December 12, 1968), the functions of the Department of Public Printing and Stationery were integrated into the Department of Defence Production.
4.	(a) None; (b) Not applicable.
5.	4,480.



Mr. Corbin: 1.	During the first nine months of the current fiscal year, what amounts did the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development contribute to the physical improvement program under (a) home construction (b) highways (c) electricity, water and sewage facilities on the Maliseet Reserve and the Edmundston (Iroquois) Reserve in New Brunswick?
2.	What were the corresponding figures for 196768 and 1966-67?
3.	What total amounts were contributed to all Indian Reserves in New Brunswick for each of the above-mentioned facilities and during each of the above-mentioned periods?
April 21. 1969


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 1 and 2.
April 1 to
December 31, Maliseet Reserve		Edmundston
1968	(Tobique)	Reserve
	$	$
(a)	42,597	8,524
(b)	238	
(c)	362	
1967-68 (a)	77,108	17,314
(b)	935	
(c)	243	
1966-67 (a)	27,035	1,200
(b)	8,820	
(c)	5,159	
3. April 1 to December 31,		
1968	1967-68	1966-67$	$	$(a) 309,827	418,822	439,101(b) 3,705	81,889	34,996(c) 64,998	133,296	93,644Total 378,530	634,007	567,741


COMPANY OF YOUNG CANADIANS EMPLOYEES
Mr. Yewchuk: 1.	(a) How many people are employed with the Company of Young Canadians at the present time (b) how many in each province?
2.	What are their salaries?
3.	What has been the extent of their expense accounts?
4 (a) What are the terms of reference under which members of the CYC work (b) have the terms of reference been changed within the past year?


Gérard Pelletier: I am informed by the Company of Young Canadians as follows: 1. (a) As of March 15th, 1969, there were 55 persons employed with the Company of Young Canadians including executive, project and secretarial staff, (b) British Columbia, five; Northwest Territories, one; Alberta, one; Ontario, 36 (includes National Office); Quebec, 11; Nova Scotia, one.
2.	One, $19,000; six, $10,001-$15,000; 12, $7,501-$10,000; 21, $5,001-$7,500; 15, up to $5,000,
3.	The Company of Young Canadians will reimburse staff members participating in
Questions
Company programs for transportation, food, accommodation and other expenses incurred by them in carrying out assignments and work with and for the benefit of the Company of Young Canadians as described in a transportation and travel policy adopted by the Council of the Company. When off-project travelling is required, written approval from the Executive Director is necessary before the trip can be taken and expenses reimbursed.
4.	The terms of reference under which members of the staff of the Company of Young Canadians have always worked are those set out in the Company of Young Canadians Act and the policies established by the Council of the Company in accordance with the provisions of this legislation and implemented by the Executive Director.


VILLEBOIS-JAMES BAY RAILWAY
Mr. Fortin: 1.	Does the government intend to construct a railway linking Villebois with James Bay?
2.	Does the government intend to establish a national park on the Quebec shore of James Bay, to be known as the ''Pierre Lemoyne d'Iberville Park"?
3.	Has the government received a request from the Order of the Conquerors of the North, and what was the purport of such request?


Mr. Yves Forest (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: I am informed by the Department of Transport and the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development as follows: 1, 2, and 3. No.


BILINGUAL DESIGNATION OF GOVERNMENT CORPORATIONS
Mr. Caouette: 1.	Which government corporations and agencies do not yet have a bilingual designation?
2.	Which ones were given a bilingual designation during the past three years?
3.	Does the government intend to provide French designations for corporations presently designated only in English and, if so, on what date?


Yves Forest: 1. None.
2.	The Company of Young Canadians, National Arts Centre Corporation, National Museums of Canada, Canadian Film Development Corporation, Canadian Radio-Television Commission, The Northern Transportation Company Limited, Cape Breton Development Corporation, Fisheries Prices

April 21. 1969
Questions
Support Board, Eldorado Nuclear Limited, Eldorado Aviation Limited, Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation.
3.	Not applicable.


INVESTIGATION BY R.C.M.P. OF QUEBEC BOMBINGS
Mr. Robinson: 1.	Has the RCMP investigated the numerous bombings and/or explosions that have taken place in Quebec and, if so, how many individuals have been (a) apprehended (b) convicted of an offense and, if not, for what reason and when will investigations take place and when will they be completed?
2.	Has the RCMP investigated the student unrest and/or riots that have and are occurring on many university campuses of Canada and, if so, what are the results of such investigations and, if not, for what reason?


George James McIlraith: 1.	Yes. The responsibility, however, lies with the city and provincial peace officers. The responsibility in this area primarily comes under the provincial authority in the first instance.
2.	The R.C.M. Police have co-operated in investigating this type of matter. It has always been regarded as not in the public's interest to divulge information respecting Police operations in the investigational field. This has consistently been the practice of all recent governments.


MOUNT GABRIEL LODGE MEETING
Mr. Broadbent: 1.	Was a meeting held at Mount Gabriel Lodge in June 1968 between Treasury Board officials, Deputy Ministers of government departments and Heads of Crown Corporations and Agencies?
2.	What was the purpose of the above meeting?
3.	Was there discussion regarding the question of federal government guide-lines for salaries and wages in collective bargaining agreements?
4.	If so, what guide-lines were established and on what basis?
5.	Are there any federal government guide-lines regarding collective bargaining agreements and, if so, what are they?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: 1. Yes, but representatives from corporations and agencies were at the senior personnel official level.
2.	To exchange information on developments and trends in the general field of personnel administration.
3.	No.

4.	N/A.
5.	There are no general guidelines established by the Government for Public Service collective bargaining negotiations. Bargaining positions are determined on an individual basis to meet the requirements of the separate Public Service bargaining units. In the view of the Government, it is not in the public interest or in the interest of effective collective bargaining to disclose these positions.


PACIFIC 66 FUEL STATIONS
Mr. Rose: 1 Has any directive been issued to the RCMP in British Columbia to patronize only Phillips 66 stations for fuel purchases for police vehicles?
2.	If so, was this directive motivated by the acceptance by the RCMP of a low bid granted from an open tender available to all oil companies?
3.	What method is generally followed in the fuel and servicing practices of RCMP vehicles in British Columbia?


George James McIlraith: 1.
No. However, instructions were issued that in order to effect a saving of public funds, the R.C.M. Police Detachments having access to Pacific Petroleum outlets should patronize them in view of the substantial discounts offered by that company.
2.	No.
3.	Fuel: Whenever possible, fuel is purchased from outlets offering the highest discounts, in order to conserve public funds. Servicing: R.C.M. Police vehicles, where possible, are serviced by the dealer from whom the vehicles were originally purchased. If this is not practicable, vehicles are serviced by other authorized dealers of the automobile manufacturing company concerned.


ROGER DUHAMEL
Mr. Diefenbaker: 1.	Is Roger Duhamel the Queen's Printer as of this date?
2.	If not, was he removed from the position?
3.	If he was removed from the position, when and under what authority was such action taken?
4 What position in the government service does he now occupy?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: 1. Yes, as of March 13th, 1969.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	Not applicable.
4.	Special Adviser to the Minister of Supply and Services, as of April 1, 1969.
April 21. 1969	COMMONS


INDIANS ON AND OFF RESERVATIONS
Mr. Robinson: 1.	How many Indians in Canada reside (a) on reservations (b) off reservations?
2.	How many adult Indians (a) on reservations are gainfully employed (b) off reservations are gainfully employed?
3.	How many Indians (a) male (b) female, are attending (i) high school (ii) university?
4.	How many Indians of Canada are university graduates?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 1. (a)
and (b): Total population residence, (as at December 31, 1968): On, 161,695; Off, 54,220; Crown Land, 21,562; Unstated, 13.
2.	This information is not available.
3.	(a) and (b): There are 7,021 Indians attending high school in Canada, including the Northwest Territories and the Yukon, for whom the Department pays the tuition fees or otherwise accepts responsibility. We do not have a breakdown according to sex for high school students. There are 189 Indian students attending university of which 123 are male and 66 female. This does not include 46 students who enrolled in university sessions during the summer of 1968. In addition, there are 38 Indian students attending professional courses in teacher training institutions and 20 taking training in
DEBATES	7735
Questions
nursing. It should be noted that these figures do not include off-reserve Indians or any Indians for whom the Department has not provided some form of financial assistance.
4.	The Department does not have any information available as to the number of Indians of Canada who are university graduates.


EXTRA ALLOWANCES FOR REMOTE AREAS SERVICE
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	In what communities in Canada are extra allowances paid to government officials because they are located in remote areas of Canada?
2.	What form of classification do these allowances take?
3.	What is the amount allowed in each community for each classification?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: 1. Extra allowances are payable to government employees at 366 remote communities in Canada under the Isolated Posts Regulations.
2.	Isolation allowances are paid at all the communities and, in some cases, food allowances, supplementary allowances and fuel and utilities allowances are also paid.
3.	The allowances are payable as indicated in the following tables:
Rates op Isolation Allowance
Rate of Allowance
Classification of Post for Isolation Allowance	Classified Employee	Hourly Rate	Married	Single	Married	Single$	$	s	$i.	21 locations	
2100 a year	1200 a year	1. CO an hour	.57 an hour2.	25 " 	
1800 a year	1080 a year	.86 an hour	. 52 an hour3.	61 " 	
1500 a year	900 a year	. 72 an hour	.43 an hour4.	157 " 	
1140 a year	720 a year	. 55 an hour	. 34 an hour5.	48 " 	
780 a year	480 a year	.37 an hour	.23 an hour6.	54 " 	
420 a year	240 a year	. 20 an hour	. 12 an hourRates op Food Allowance	1.	3 locations	552 a year	.44 an hour	. 26 an hour2.	i " 	
800 a year	480 a year	. 38 an hour	. 23 an hour3.	4 " 	408 a year	.33 an hour	. 20 an hour4.	8 " 	336 a year	.27 an hour	. 16 an hour5.	15 " 	
440 a year	264 a year	.21 an hour	. 13 an hour6.	66 " 	
320 a year	192 a year	. 15 an hour	. 09 an hour7.	19 " 	
200 a year	120 a year	. 10 an hour	.06 an hour
Questions

April 21, 1969
Rates of Supplementary Allowance
Rate of Allowance
Classification of Post for Supplementary Allowance	Classified Employee	Hourly Rate	Married	Single	Married	Single$	$	$	$i.	1 location	
440 a year	264 a year	.21 an hour	. 12 an hour2.	5 locations	
360 a year	216 a year	.17 an hour	.10 an hour3.	5 " 	
280 a year	168 a year	. 13 an hour	.08 an hour4.	1 " 	120 a year	.09 an hour	. 05 an hourRates of Fuel and Utilities Allowance	1.	3 locations	
550 a year	330 a year	. 26 an hour	.16 an hour2.	i " 	270 a year	.21 an hour	. 13 an hour3.	6 " 	210 a year	. 17 an hour	. 10 an hour4.	3 " 	150 a year	. 12 an hour	. 07 an hour5.	5 " 	
150 a year	90 a year	.07 an hour	. 04 an hour6.	5 " 	
50 a year	30 a year	.02 an hour	.01 an hour


PAYMENTS TO AIR CANADA FOR POSTAL SERVICE
Mr. Rose: 1.	What was the amount of money paid to Air Canada by the postal service of Canada in 1966, 1967, 1968?
2.	How many permanent employees in 1969 are
on the inside staffs of the following major post offices:	Vancouver, Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal,
Winnipeg and Halifax?
3.	How many temporary postal helpers in 1969 are employed by the above post offices at $1.75 per hour?
	2.	3.
	Permanent	
	Employees	Part-Time
	1969	Postal Helpers
Vancouver	1,019	1Toronto	2,847	357Ottawa	673	12Montreal	3,425	645Winnipeg	808	7Halifax	252	1
Note: Question No. 3 cannot be answered as asked in respect of casual employees as the number of casual employees fluctuates from day to day and records are kept only for the number of hours used and reported at the end of each month.
Man hours worked by casuals for the fiscal year 1968-69 will not be available for approximately one month, however, for the fiscal year 1967-68 casuals were employed for a total 
4.	How many part-time postal clerks in 1969 are employed by the above post offices at $2.25 per hour?
5.	What was the total permanent inside staff in each of the above post offices at December 31, 1968?


Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Minister of Communications):: In so far as the Post Office Department is concerned:
1. 1966, $13,098,938; 1967, $14,009,671; 1968,
$14,378,692.	
4.	5.
Part-time	Permanent Employees
Postal Clerks	December 31, 1968
114	No significant difference from
495	Question 2. Departmental
39	policy is to hold inside vacan-
287	cies for employees displaced
13	in the outside operation by
27	the introduction of the five-day delivery week
of 4,226,286 hours which is equivalent to 2,031.8 man years.
No record is maintained of hours worked by casuals at any one particular pay rate. Casuals are paid at varying rates depending upon the type of work performed, for example: Casual Postal Helpers earn $1.75 per hour; Casual Letter Carriers earn $2.28 per hour; Casual Mail Handlers earn $2.07 per hour; Casual Mail Service Couriers earn $2.28 per hour.
April 21, 1969


TREASURY BOARD STUDY OF INFORMATION SERVICES
Mr. Reid: 1.	Is the Treasury Board, or any agency thereof, involved in a study of Government Information Services and, if so, when did this study begin?
2.	What are the terms of reference of this study group and from what authority did this study group draw its terms of reference?
3.	What is the official title of this study group, and what is the name of the director of this study group, and what are his qualifications for this position?
4.	What is the official title and position of Mr. B. M. Erb and what are his qualifications for this position, and what position did he hold before taking up his present responsibilities?
5.	In what way does this Treasury Board study group complement the Government's Task Force on Government Information?
6.	In what way does this Treasury Board study group conflict with the Government's Task Force on Government Information?
7.	Were the members of the Task Force on Government Information consulted on the appointment of the Treasury Board study group, and, if not, for what reason?
8.	Are the members of the Treasury Board study group and the Government Task Force on Government Information in consultation with one another, and, if not, for what reason?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: 1. No.
2.	N/A.
3.	N/A.
4.	Mr. B. M. Erb is Director of the Communications Division, Treasury Board. A former newspaperman, Mr. Erb has been a federal government information officer for more than 21 years. He was formerly Assistant Director of Information for the Department of National Health and Welfare, Director of Public Relations for the Post Office Department, Director of Information for the Department of Citizenship and Immigration and, prior to his present position, Director of Information for the Department of Manpower and Immigration.
5.	N/A.
6.	N/A.
7.	N/A.
8.	N/A.


ARDA PROJECT 22024
Mr. Corbin: 1.	To whom were the salaries in ARDA Project 22024 paid as stated at page 6682 of Hansard, March 17, 1969?
Questions
2.	What were the terms of the certification given by the Auditor General of the Province of Nova Scotia?
3.	Has either the provincial Auditor General or any officer of the provincial government raised with the Department of Forestry and Rural Development any question as to the validity of the accounts for ARDA Project 22024?
4.	Has the government examined the comments made by the provincial Auditor General on those accounts in his annual report tabled in the Legislative Assembly of Nova Scotia?
5.	How many ARDA projects were in progress in Nova Scotia in 1968-69?
6.	Are the accounts for these other ARDA projects certified by the provincial Auditor General?


Mr. Russell C. Honey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: 1. M. E. Jamerson, Project Manager; George Kalin, Assistant to Project Manager; Donald Sproule, Accountant.
2.	"I have carried out an audit of the claim identified above. I have examined the methods and data used to determine the shareable costs for compliance with the requirements of the "General Agreement" made with the province pursuant to the Agricultural Rehabilitation and Development Act, and the "Project Agreement" relative to this particular project. I also conducted such tests of the accounting records and other supporting evidence as I considered necessary in the circumstances.
"In my opinion, the shareable cost has been determined in accordance with the provisions of the "General Agreement" and the "Project Agreement" and all applicable credits or refunds have been taken into account. If any further credits or refunds are received, I undertake to notify the responsible Federal Minister."
3.	No.
4.	Assurance has been received from the Auditor General of the province that payments by the federal government on this project relate only to the objectives outlined in the original proposal.
5.	Thirty-eight share-cost ARDA projects.
6.	Yes.


ROD SERVICES CONTRACT
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Did the Post Office recently cancel or terminate a contract for services with Rod Services of Montreal and, if so, when was this done?

April 21, 1969
Questions
2.	Did the contract contain a clause which permitted unilateral termination by either party and, if not, which party took the initiative in terminating the contract?
3.	Was any consideration given to Rod Services for their agreement to accept the termination of the contract, if so (a) did this involve equipment such as trucks and other vehicles and what was the sum of the payment for these vehicles (b) is it the intention of the Post Office to use these vehicles?
4.	Before the contract was terminated, did the Post Office Department get an evaluation of the equipment and obtain the depreciation records for the equipment and, if not, for what reason?
5.	Has any approval been given by Treasury Board to a termination payment to Rod Services and, if so, is it a lump sum or does it cover a portion for the agreement to terminate and another portion for the equipment owned by Rod Services?
6.	Has any arrangement been discussed with Rod Services under which the employees of Rod Services who are no longer required to work on Post Office tasks could receive compensation in the form of severance pay or any other method?
Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Minister of Communications) In so far as the Post Office Department is concerned; 1. Yes, on the 15 March 1969.
2.	No. The Postmaster General and the Company agreed and were willing to terminate the said contracts with both parties waiving, abandoning and relinquishing in that respect any rights or entitlements to any notice that may be required to be given under the said contracts.
3.	Yes. (a) The Department purchased the vehicles for a total sum of $331,465.00; (b) It was the intention if no alternate methods could be found.
4.	Yes. Vehicles were evaluated by competent appraisers hired by the Department.
5.	No.
6.	No. Under terms of their labour agreement with Rod Services they are entitled to one week's notice or one week's pay in lieu of notice.


PERSONNEL ADMINISTERING INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	What was the total number of people within the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, or its predecessor, who were directly concerned with the administration of Indian Affairs and services in the years 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968 and 1969?
2.	What was the number of Indian people in Canada during the same years who were the concern of these departmental employees?
[Mr. Orlikow.l


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 1. Total
number of employees of Indian Affairs.
		Other
	Teachers	Staff
March 1965	1479	1071March 1966	1487	1273March 1967	1537	1363March 1968	1617	1558March 1969	1570	1523
2. Indian population: December 1964, 211,384; December 1965, 218,098; December 1966, 224,164; December 1967, 230,902; December 1968, 237,490.


GRAIN STORAGE FACILITIES IN ALBERTA
Mr. Mazankowski: Has the federal government given consideration to the establishment of substantial grain storage facilities in the Province of Alberta and, if so, (a) under what terms and conditions will such construction be undertaken, (b) when is construction expected to start, and (c) where in Alberta will such facilities be located?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: No.


R.C.M.P. MOTOR FLEET AND HORSES MAINTENANCE
Mr. Robinson: 1.	How many motor vehicles are operated by the RCMP and what is the cost of the motor vehicle fleet maintenance in each of the years 1960-68 inclusive?
2.	How many horses are maintained by the RCMP and where are they located and what was the cost of maintenance for each of the years 1960-68 inclusive?
3.	What was the total value of (a) horses (b) saddles and riding equipment (c) barns, utilized by the RCMP?


George James McIlraith: 1. 2,709 vehicles as of March 31, 1969. Cost:
Year	Actual	Per Mile1960-61	$1,996,330	4.901961-62	2,042,135	4.701962-63	2,003,995	4.6201963-64	2,099,888	4.5101964-65	2,429,404	4.8701965-66	2,571,981	4.7601966-67	2,840,719	4.7301967-68	3,397,460	5.030
April 21, 1969

2.	134 horses as of March 31, 1969. 81 at "N" Division, Rockcliffe, Ontario; 53 at Pakenham Ranch, Ontario. Cost: 1960-61, $35,299.35; 1961-62, $43,890.57; 1962-63, $38,892,91; 1963-64, $31,726.82; 1964-65, $30,484.78; 1965-66, $42,608.20; 1966-67, $27,242.75; 1967-68, $31,256.41.
3.	(a) approximately $134,000; (b) approximately $37,020; (c) $120,000. (1939 building cost).


SOUTH AFRICAN AND RHODESIAN DEFENCE. PERSONNEL
Mr. Broadbenl: 1.	Are any members of the Canadian Defence Forces citizens of either the Union of South Africa or Rhodesia?
2.	If so, where are they stationed now and where were they stationed in June of 1968?


Mr. D. W. Groos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: 1. and 2.
Basic enrolment standards for direct entry commissioned officers and men indicate applicant must be a Canadian citizen. However, a citizen of another country with landed immigrant status may be considered for enrolment if in the opinion of CFHQ the national interest would not be prejudiced. To ascertain which, if any, of the members of the Canadian Forces were citizens of either the Union of South Africa or Rhodesia would entail the examination of the flies of all members of the Canadian Forces. The necessary staff is not available to undertake the large amount of work which would be required to gather this information.


RELEASE OF PILOTS
Mr. Robinson: 1.	Of the 2,295 pilots released from the service during the years 1960-68 inclusive, how many were released for (a) medical reasons (b) reduction in establishment (c) normal retirement policy (d) own request?
2.	Of those released under 1(a), what was the average number of years service as a pilot?
3.	Of those released under 1(d), what was the average number of years service as a pilot and what was the cost of training them?


David Walter Groos: 1, 2 and 3.
This information is not readily available and cannot be provided without the identification of each individual involved, the drawing from War Service Records of the confidential personal files and the examination of these files
Questions
to obtain the information, some of which will require considerable searching and interpretation. The necessary expert staff is not available to undertake the large amount of work which would be required to gather this information.


AIR CREW ALLOWANCE TO PILOTS
Mr. Robinson: 1.	What is the total amount of air crew allowance paid to pilots in the Canadian Forces?
2.	How many members of the Canadian Forces received such allowance and what is the number in each rank receiving this allowance?
3.	Do any other members of the Canadian Forces receive special payments or allowances apart from the normal pay allotment and, if so, how are they designated, who are the recipients, how much do they receive and what is the total cost to the federal Government?


David Walter Groos: 1. Pilots of the Regular Forces receive rates of pay in accordance with QR & O article 204.215. As of December 1, 1968, the total monthly amount paid was $2,967,261.00.
2. As of December 1, 1968:
Rank	Number
Lieutenant	384
Captain	1474
Major	584
Lieutenant-Colonel	208
Colonel	86
3. Yes, attention is directed to Chapters 204 and 205 of QR & O. The amount of work which would be required to provide an accurate answer to this question is excessive, and the necessary expert staff is not available to gather the information.


REFUNDS TO TENANTS AS TAXABLE INCOME
Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg: North Centre):
Are refunds made by property owners or landlords to tenants in the Province of Ontario, as provided by legislation of that province, regarded as taxable income in the hands of the said tenants, under the Income Tax Act?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cole (Minister of National Revenue):: No, except where the tenant is using the leased property for the purpose of earning income.

April 21, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry


QUESTION PASSED ON ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. Douglas (Assiniboia): (Supplementary)
1.	In each of the latest ten years for which figures are available, how much was paid to farmers in subsidies and other forms of assistance by the federal government (a) in Canada, and (b) by provinces?
2.	What was the gross income of farmers for those same ten years (a) in Canada, and (b) by provinces?
3.	What was the total number of farmers for those same ten years (a) in Canada, and (b) by provinces?
Return tabled.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. We welcome him back from his well earned holiday and only regret that the apparent inability of 'his 26 colleagues and various assorted parliamentary secretaries to deal with problems made it necessary for him to return1. I should like to ask the minister if he has anything to report on the situation with regard to the Air Canada strike and whether the government or the minister have done anything to bring these parties together. If so, what progress has been made and what steps have been taken to have the service restored and negotiations continued.


Hon. Bryce S. Mackasey (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I returned home two days early because somebody sent me two box seats to the Montreal Expos baseball game on Sunday. They were very scarce, in view of the great team we have.
On the week end I took advantage of the occasion to contact the negotiating teams of Air Canada and of the International Association of Machinists to see whether any progress might be made should the two negotiating teams resume negotiating. I am pleased to say that at my request they resumed negotiations last night at midnight and were still negotiating at eleven o'clock this morning. At that time they -were due to take a coffee break and if they have not resolved their difficulties they will continue to

negotiate tonight at ten o'clock, or at the latest tomorrow morning at ten o'clock.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Labour whether he has given consideration to the desirability of bringing a mediator into the picture at this stage. I appreciate the delicacy of this kind of situation; but in view of the time that has passed, because they have been negotiating since last November, I wonder whether it would be desirable to bring in a really effective mediator now.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I have done a little better than that. I have brought in two mediators, Mr. Kelly and Mr. Wilson of the Department of Labour conciliation branch. They are with the parties, and have been since last night at midnight.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has his attention been drawn to a statement made in Toronto this week end by Dr. Papandreou, the former Greek minister of state, in which he said there was a direct line of responsibility for the Greek coup in the NATO command and the United States defence department? I should like to ask the minister whether the NATO council of ministers have discussed the question of whether or not the present administration in Greece should be permitted to continue to be a member of NATO in view of the fact that it is violating the commitment contained in the NATO agreement that all member states shall strengthen their democratic institutions.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, each member state of NATO is of course an independent government and runs its own affairs. But as the hon. gentleman has said the North Atlantic Treaty Organization itself places special emphasis on the determination of members to safeguard "the principles of democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law". This is am obligation made upon each of the member countries. There has been no decision, of course, of the members of NATO, to dissolve the treaty in respect of Greece, but it is the desire of all within the NATO alliance, and certainly the desire of Canadians, to see
April 21, 1963



democratic institutions re-established in Greece.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister whether at the NATO meeting in Washington he or any other member of the Canadian delegation raised the matter of the right of the present military junta in Greece to continue to sit on the council of NATO?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker. The representative of the Greek government at the NATO council said that they were proposing to take certain steps in the direction of democracy. There was no other discussion.


NATO-MEETINGS SUGGESTED BY WARSAW PACT TO EFFECT DETENTE
Mr. Ed Schreyer (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact the NATO council has decided not to accept the objective of the Warsaw Pact to hold direct meetings in an effort to achieve detente in Europe, is the minister in a position to say whether Canada was in general accord with the NATO council's decision to seek alternative means of pursuing detente?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the decision of the NATO powers at the meeting in Washington was not as negative as my hon. friend suggests. It is very forward looking, and we are looking hopefully to the possibility of discussions on the future of Europe that we and others sought. There was some doubt however about the practicality or the effectiveness of holding an immediate conference. That is a quite different matter. On that point Canada agreed that there should be some hesitation, that the main purpose should be to promote detente, and that a conference at this time might not be the best way of achieving that purpose.


AIRPORTS
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister regarding the famous Sainte-Scholastique international airport.
Has the Prime Minister received a letter from the premier of Quebec, Mr. Jean-
Inquiries of the Ministry Jacques Bertrand requesting that a meeting be held, with a view to discussing the airport question, which is presently giving raise to a great deal of confusion in the province of Quebec, as the Prime Minister is certainly aware of.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Righl Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):
I think, Mr. Speaker, that after a year's-


Gerald William Baldwin: We thought it was ten years.


Mr. Trudeau:: -experience, the Liberal caucus has learned that it is better to applaud me before I have answered than after.
In answer to the question proper, I can say there have been exchanges of views between the premier of Quebec, Mr. Bertrand, and myself, but prior to the final announcement concerning the site of the airport. Since then, there has not been, to my knowledge, any request made on his behalf to meet me, although there have been meetings between ministers of the federal and the provincial governments, in order to discuss further the matter of the airport.
The decision taken by the federal government following these meetings has been to confirm the choice already made.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. W. M. Howe (Wellington-Grey):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport but in view of its importance I should like to direct it to the Prime Minister. Has he received any report in connection with the derailment of a passenger train near Toronto yesterday, particularly in view of the suggestion there might have been sabotage involved in this accident?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I have received no report from the Minister of Transport, Mr. Speaker. The department will be answering questions in the house tomorrow and I am sure that if this question is asked and the minister has an answer he will be willing to give it.

April 21, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


AIR CANADA STRIKE-DELIVERY OF FIRST CLASS MAIL
Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Postmaster General what means have been taken to transport the large volume of first class mail ordinarily carried by Air Canada in view of the strike now taking place?


Eric William Kierans: Mr. Speaker, we are using other airlines-the C.P.R. and chartering other aircraft.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I should like to ask the
minister how much delay in the delivery of mail is anticipated as a result of this situation?


Eric William Kierans: Mr. Speaker, we believe the delivery will be very satisfactory, although not as complete as it was with Air Canada because Air Canada has very many more routes. We intend to hire or charter as many more planes as necessary to fill the gaps.


DELAY IN MAIL DELIVERY
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Communications.
At the present time we are using the facilities of other air transport companies for mail conveyance.
Last week, while in western Canada, I found that in two provinces among others, some letters mailed from the parliament buildings on April 2 had been delivered on April 17.
Is the minister aware that the postal service in the west is that unsatisfactory?


Eric William Kierans: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member is ready to let me have the covers in question, I shall inquire. However, I can tell him that all those complaints are somewhat exaggerated.
A few days ago, an inquiry conducted in Edmonton by the Chamber of Commerce showed that over 90 per cent of the city's businessmen were quite satisfied with the postal service.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Communications.
He has just said that 90 per cent of Edmonton businessmen are quite satisfied with the postal service, but is he aware of the fact that this does not even represent 5 per cent of the population of Alberta?


AIR CANADA STRIKE-MAIL SERVICE TO SYDNEY-STEPHENVILLE-GANDER AREA
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-Sl. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that Nordair will be overflying intermediate points between Halifax and St. John's Newfoundland, will the minister tell the house of his department's plans to service the Sydney-Ste-phenville-Gander areas as a result of this strike?


Eric William Kierans: Mr. Speaker, Nordair left last night with mail for the maritimes.


REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask what answer the Prime Minister has given to the request of the premier of the province of Manitoba to enter into discussions of the plans for Manitoba's economic development set out by the commission on Manitoba's target for economic development?


Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Perhaps the minister did not understand my question.


George Robson Muir: Mr. Speaker, I also rise on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the hon. member would allow the hon. member for Lisgar to ask his supplementary question? I will return to the hon. member in a moment.


George Robson Muir: Mr., Speaker, the Prime Minister was about to answer my question.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I was, Mr. Speaker, but I yielded to the point of order.	;
April 21, 1969


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I gather the point of order will now yield to the Prime Minister's answer.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the letter to which the hon. member refers but I will look it up. I do know that officials of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion are planning to meet with officials of various provinces to discuss with them problems of economic expansion.


POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT
Jack Marshall: When I directed my question to the Postmaster General he just said that mail was going to the maritimes. I realized that from the words of the Prime Minister a couple of days ago, and I did not expect the minister to repeat them. I sincerely asked what is going to happen in respect of those intermediate points between Halifax and St. John's, Newfoundland. That is all I asked.


Eric William Kierans: Mr. Speaker, all I said was that the charter service provided by Nordair for the maritimes began last night. Because it was a Sunday, last night the mail for all the maritime points happened to be comparatively light. But the service commenced anyway, because it has to return with maritimes mail picked up from Halifax and all the other intermediate points.


AIR CANADA
Mr. David Anderson (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the serious shortage of air freight space on other airlines due to the Air Canada strike I wonder whether the Minister of Communications has now considered using the services of Department of National Defence aircraft or the Department of Transport so as to liberate some of the space on the Canadian Pacific Airlines and other carriers in Canada for commercial people who find it essential to use air freight? I have particularly in mind the flower growers in my area whose entire annual income is derived during a short period of time and depends entirely on air freight.
Inquiries of the Ministry AGRICULTURE


ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS IN COMPENSATION FOR LACK OF GRAIN SALES
George Robson Muir: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. In view of the very serious shortage of cash on the western prairies due to the lack of grain sales, has the government any plans to assist our farmers in this regard before the critical spring planting season commences?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have nothing to add to what the ministers responsible for that area of government have said.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Have complaints been received from the Quebec War Veterans Association and also from the Association of War Blinded inquiring as to the length of time it has taken to get the Woods committee report before the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs; and if so, what consideration has been given to these complaints?


Hon. Jean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I have
received a brief on the matter from the Council of Veterans Associations of Quebec.
The existence of such documents originating with the War Blind Association was not brought to my attention by officers of my department.
However, I explained to the Veterans Affairs Committee, last Thursday, and to the House, during the preceding week, the procedure that the government intends to follow with regard to the Woods report.




Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, I know I am speaking on behalf of all M.P.'s who would like to* have some of the pressure taken off them from wires, telegrams and letters we are receiving. In view of the continuing difficulties and the overload of work at

April 21, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry the passport office in Ottawa, owing to the new regulations, resulting in a serious backlog in the issuance of passports, can we have an assurance that immediate consideration will be given to the opening of sub-offices in Vancouver and other centres for the issuance of passports? I ask this question because we are getting heartbroken at the wires and telegrams we are receiving on this matter.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I intend, perhaps later in the week, to make a more complete statement on this subject because I understand how serious the matter is. But perhaps it will help to explain the situation if I say that the volume of applications this year is up by 28 per cent over last year.


Harold Edward Winch: That is the reason we want something done about it.


Hon. Gordon L. Fairweather (Fundy-Royal):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In a very excellent announcement many months ago it was said that sub-offices were to be opened. The question I want to ask is, when will they be opened?


Mitchell William Sharp: It had been our intention, and was so announced, to open them next year.


Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the minister would com sider changing the advertising in regard to passports, which advises people to apply two weeks in advance, when the passport office is taking six to seven weeks normally to issue a passport.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: It is taking two years.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the customary time for dealing with applications was1 about five days. At the present time it is about ten days.


Harold Edward Winch: It is six weeks.


Mr. Maclnnis:: What the minister has said is nonsense. He has it all fouled up.


HEALTH AND WELFARE
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Warren Allmand (Nofre-Dame-de-
Grace): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Considering the statement made Friday evening by the Quebec minister of health, Mr. 
Cloutier, that Quebec had no other choice but to move to complete medical insurance, would the minister advise the house whether he had received any communication from the Quebec minister or his staff indicating that they now wish to join the federal medicare program?
Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Not officially, Mr. Speaker. However, the officials of my department and those of the department of health for the province of Quebec are talking back and forth on a continuing basis. We know that Quebec is interested in the federal proposals and is aware of them, but they have not made any definite decision as to when they are coming in, and if they are coming in.


MANPOWER AND IMMIGRATION
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Manpower and Immigration whether he has yet appointed the Canada Manpower and Immigration Council.


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, as I explained to the hon. gentleman some time ago in an earlier debate, I have been waiting for the nominee of one of the important national organizations, Which has not been forthcoming. However, notwithstanding that deficiency, I have proposed the names to my colleagues and we hope that the council will be appointed very shortly.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the Minister of Manpower and Immigration also recommending the immediate establishment of subsidiary advisory councils, to which he referred in his speech some months ago?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Just as soon as the major council is appointed we will proceed to nominate the four subsidiary boards.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is it the intention of the minister to seek the advice of this council in an urgent way with regard to the employment of student manpower in the country?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: There will be a number of important policy matters that will go before
April 21, 1969

the council and the boards. I doubt whether it will be possible to receive the advice of the council on this very important matter, which is now immediate and uipon us.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the very alarming statistics put out by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics on Friday, that approximately half a million Canadians are unemployed, representing almost 6 per cent of the labour force, what is the government doing about this very serious and alarming rate of unemployment?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member knows that I have taken the liberty of making the suggestion that it is difficult to ask for a general statement at this time. I think the question ought to be more specific than asking for a very general answer. In my humble opinion this kind of statement should be made at the time of motions.


James Aloysius McGrath: further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the alarming unemployment statistics for the nation as a whole, and particularly for the Atlantic provinces, which are now undergoing such serious financial circumstances-I understand the figure for the Atlantic provinces, in respect of unemployment, is 10 per cent of the labour force-what is the government doing about this very serious rate of unemployment, especially for the Atlantic provinces?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I might point out to the hon. member that, if my recollection is right, the same type of question was asked last week. I would still like to suggest to hon. members that this type of question always produces the same type of answer. Whichever minister is responsible for the matter raised, he will make a long statement as to the accomplishments of the government, and we are not much further ahead having heard-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: -either the question or the answer. This is why I have always suggested to hon. members that there is not much point taking many minutes of the very limited and 29180-490J
Inquiries of the Ministry restricted question period to undertake this kind of exercise.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I agree with Your Honour's ruling, but my question was prompted by the-statistics put out by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics on Friday last; therefore, my question is of an urgent nature.


EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES FOR STUDENTS
Mr. J. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration on the specific question of unemployment. In the light of the Canadian Press national survey showing that some quarter of a million students are likely to be without employment this summer, would the minister consider tabling in the near future a statement about what programs his department is going to implement this summer to deal with this situation?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will consider tabling such a statement.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. Now that it seems the Minister of Manpower and Immigration is taking steps to establish this long delayed council, would the Prime Minister encourage the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs to bring forth to the government his recommendations with respect to the prices study group?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the minister has already consulted with me on certain nominations, and I think that this will be done forthwith.


HEARING AIDS-INQUIRY AS TO AVAILABILITY OF REPORT
Winona Grace MacInnis: I notice that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs is not in his place today, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether I can borrow the ear of his Parliamentary Secretary-his good ear, please. In view of the recent hearing aid swindle in connection with which an Ontario judge ordered repayment to six elderly people who had been charged $360

April 21, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry for instruments which cost $45, can the minister say just how soon his own investigation into hearing aids will be considered? I am aware that we get "soon" as an answer to this question, but these people have been waiting a long time to hear the results of this inquiry, and perhaps the news should be forthcoming at a very early date, now.


Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: I assure the hon. member that I shall bring this matter to the attention of the minister as soon as he returns to the house.


HEALTH AND WELFARE
Mr. Jack Cullen (Sarnia):: I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I should like to know what assurance his department can give that cohoe salmon and other fish taken out of Lake Huron this summer are not dangerously contaminated by high parts per million of d.d.t.


John Carr Munro: We are examining this situation. We are satisfied that any parts per million of d.d.t. in cohoe salmon taken from Lake Huron would be well below the level which might be considered detrimental or dangerous. However the investigation is being carried on and I hope to have more information in the next few days.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Will the minister tell me how he knows the levels are not dangerously high if the investigation has not been completed?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This could develop into a debate. The minister and the hon. member might get together, if they wish, at ten o'clock.


WHEAT-NEGOTIATIONS WITH JAPAN TO SELL CANADIAN SURPLUS
Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Would the minister tell the house whether, during the discussions between Canadian and Japanese officials held last week, any mention was made of the possibility of trading or selling part of our 1968 wheat crop which is still on hand?


Mitchell William Sharp: I can assure the hon. member that my colleague the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce was a very ardent advocate on behalf of our wheat producers.


RAPESEED-DISCRIMINATORY JAPANESE TARIFF AGAINST CANADIAN PRODUCT
Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaioon-Biggar):: My
supplementary question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, Mr. Speaker. During the recent trip to Japan was the question of the discriminatory tariff on rapeseed exports to that country discussed with the representatives of the Japanese government, and if so can the hon. gentleman give us any indication of the response received or the attitude expressed?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we had a long and detailed discussion on this subject. We pointed out to the Japanese government that we considered their treatment of rape-seed as against soyabeans to be very discriminatory, and they have promised to take this under consideration.


OSAKA '70 CANADIAN REPRESENTATION AT OPENING OF WORLD FAIR
Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancasler):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the minister if it has yet been decided who will be representing Canada at the opening of the world fair in Japan next year, in May?


Mitchell William Sharp: The Japanese government has consulted with us as to whom we would like them to invite.


Thomas Miller Bell: Is the minister aware that
because of the invitations floating around tc both the Prime Minister and the Governor General some consternation has been caused in other countries concerning the pattern they should follow, and that a decision should therefore be forthcoming as soon as possible?


Mitchell William Sharp: The Japanese government is looking to us for some guidance.


Gerald William Baldwin: God help them.
April 21, 1969


INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY
Edward Richard Schreyer: In view of the fact that in 1969 there are huge stockpiles of wheat in western Canada while, at the same time, eastern farmers are receiving very low prices for their corn, would the minister make representations to one of his former colleagues and ask her to stop making commercials for the sale of rice?




Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, Mr. Speaker. Has the United States State Department informed the Canadian government that the United States is-and I quote-"very much concerned" about Canada's attempts to negotiate diplomatic relations with Peking?


Mitchell William Sharp: When we announced our intention to do so the United States government indicated to us that they did not endorse this action on our part and were concerned about the position of Taiwan. I expected this would be the position, and I was not surprised.


Robert Muir: May
I ask the minister whether he can tell us to what point the negotiations with Peking have now progressed?


Mitchell William Sharp: I think I have reported to the house on this, but if not, I do so now. Arrangements have been made with the Canadian ambassador in Stockholm to meet with a representative of the' Peking regime in Stockholm some time in May to open the discussion on substantive issues.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Can the minister explain to the house the meaning of the statement attributed to him in Tokyo, that the question of the recognition of Mainland China was to be dealt with separately from the question of the admission of Mainland China to the United Nations. Was the minister suggesting that the one is not necessarily contingent on the other, or that he will support the one and oppose the other?


Mitchell William Sharp: While in Japan I did make a statement somewhat along the lines of that which has been quoted by the hon. gentleman
Inquiries of the Ministry from a newspaper report. What I said-and this is government policy-was that the two issues of bringing about an exchange of diplomats with Peking and the question of the membership of Mainland China in the United Nations, or the replacement of the Nationalist government by the Peking authorities in the United Nations, are two separate questions which we intend to deal with separately.
I added that our attitude with respect to membership in the United Nations would be consistent with the progress we make in negotiations for the exchange of diplomats.


Robert Muir: supplementary question)-


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder whether the hon. member would not allow the Chair to see other hon. members who are waiting anxiously for an opportunity to ask questions.


Robert Muir: Yes, Mr. Speaker. On a point of order, I would be more than pleased to accede to your request though there have been many days on which I have been unable to see you.


Mr. Speaker:: I can assure the hon. member that I see him every day.


CANADA COUNCIL
Alfred Dryden Hales: I should like to address my question to the Secretary of State, Mr. Speaker. In view of the number of complaints which I, and I am sure many other members of this house, have been receiving concerning the doctoral scholarship in the amount of $5,500 granted to one Stanley Gray, the disruptive activist of the McGill staff, has the minister requested the Canada Council to withdraw this grant?


Gérard Pelletier: No, Mr. Speaker.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Is it the intention of the minister to ask the Canada Council to withdraw it?


Gérard Pelletier: That cannot be the intention of the Secretary of State because it is not within his competence and it would be most indecent of him to make suggestions to an agency such as the Canada Council, to give it instructions or to make decisions for it, considering the responsibilities this institution has received from parliament and the law that governs it.

April 21, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: My question is directed to the Secretary of State because of his interest in many aspects of culture. Will he be attending the festival outside this building tomorrow at noon in honour of a great Canadian group of entertainers, Don Messer's Jubilee?


CANADIAN CULTURE
[Stage Direction]
ESTABLISHMENT OF JURISDICTION Mr. Gerald Laniel (Beauharnois):	Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Secretary of State a question.
Could he soon advise the house of the results of his meeting with the Quebec Minister of Cultural Affairs and assure us that the government of Canada will continue to be directly interested in Canadian culture, including Quebec and Quebeckers?
Hon: Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):
Mr. Speaker, I cannot report anything more than was said in the press release, to the effect that it was an information meeting at which we learned a great deal about the internal intentions of Quebec, within its own jurisdiction, regarding cultural activities.
As to the assurance that the federal government will continue to be interested in intellectual matters, I do not think it is necessary to assert it once again since it is an essential concern of all governments, municipal as well as federal and provincial.
Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, could the Secretary of State say whether the government of Quebec has refused or accepted to discuss cultural matters with the federal government?


REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. He will no doubt recall that last Thursday, I believe it was, I asked him whether there were any negotiations with provinces with 
which there is not now a FRED agreement to assist them in their economic development, and the minister replied that his officers were having discussions with such provinces at the time and that he hoped to have a report very shortly. Has the minister received such report from his officers, is any action now contemplated and, if he is not yet in a position to make a statement, when does he expect to be?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, as I said last week, the deputy minister of my department met with the representatives of the Maritime provinces. He will meet this week or next with the representations of other central and western provinces and it is only after that extensive tour that we will be in a position to announce which policy will be carried out.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the minister whether it is the view of himself and his department, as expressed by the deputy minister, that it will take several years before it will be known whether much can be done about regional disparity? Is that the official view of the department?


David Lewis: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I must have misunderstood the minister last Thursday. May I ask him whether these visits by the deputy minister and other officials to the provinces are in order to negotiate a plan, whether they are preliminary discussions, or what is the position? Is this a long-term proposition, or is something likely to be done within the next couple of months?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, those meetings will enable us to discuss the bill referred to last week, in order to obtain the views of the provinces on their approach to development in the fields within their jurisdiction.
They will provide us with a mass of information and views which will be extremely useful when the new regional expansion policy is discussed in the house.
April 21. 1969


STATEMENT BY TOM KENT RESPECTING DISPARITY IN ATLANTIC PROVINCES
Robert Muir: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. There are another two minutes left. In view of the fact the hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys was denied a supplementary question a moment ago, perhaps he might be allowed this one.


Robert Muir: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Is he aware that Tom Kent, his deputy minister, said in Halifax several days ago that it will be several years before the department or the minister will know whether regional disparity can be overcome? May I ask him whether he knows of this statement, and does he agree with it?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question cannot be asked in that way. The hon. member knows that ministers cannot be asked to confirm or deny statements made outside the house. The question must be put directly to the minister.


Robert Muir: Then may I rephrase it, Mr. Speaker. Is it the minister's opinion that it will be several years before he and his department will know with any great certainty, whether regional disparity can be overcome in the Atlantic provinces?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I do not know how long it will take but what is important is that we should go to work as soon as possible. I know that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) used to be the premier of a province which falls in the category of underdeveloped provinces. I know also that he worked hard while in office but the province has not yet reached an appropriate level of economic development.
Anyhow, Mr. Speaker, I think that nobody can say at which time the required equilibrium will actually be reached, but what we are going to do is start as soon as possible to correct those regional disparities.
Inquiries of the Ministry


ARTS, LETTERS AND SCIENCES EXPENDITURES FOR NATIONAL MUSEUMS
Mr. Speaker:: Order. We have now gone beyond the time assigned to questions, but the hon. member for Brandon-Souris has been foiled by other questions in his effort to ask a question. Perhaps he might be allowed to ask a question at this point.


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the Secretary of State and it has some urgency. Arising from the resignation of the Director of the Museum of Natural Sciences on the ground that government austerity has brought the museum to the end of its rope, and in view of recent similar statements by Dr. Taylor of the Museum of Man, and Dr. Boggs of the National Gallery, may I ask the Secretary of State what plans he has to deal with the growing crisis in our national museums?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest to the hon. member that his question is of very general nature and is the type that ought to be placed on the order paper. Perhaps it is a matter about which the minister might want to make a statement on motions.




Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I did not rise during the question period for two reasons. First, I did not want to take the time of questioners and, second, I wanted to illustrate graphically the relation of my point of order to the answer given by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, who admittedly has been out of the country for some time on government businessi and in the national interest.
His answer that it takes eight to ten days to get a passport is just about as much out of line as it is for me to stand here at this hour on orders of the day raising a point of order. As he answered the question I was just giving a message to a messenger to pick up four passports for which I have been waiting for over two months. 1 have made a number of passport applications during recent months. In fact, with respect, I dare say I have made even more than the minister since he has much more national business to attend to. The minimum time period-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.

April 21, 1969
Criminal Code


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: On a question of privilege, then-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest to the hon. member that this is a clear abuse of the rules of the house. The hon. member has risen on a point of order, and when the Chair decides there is no point of order for the hon. member to pursue he furthers his grievance by claiming he is rising on a question of privilege. I suggest to him that the point he is making now, which may be an entirely valid one, is not, in my view, either a point of order or a question of privilege. Nevertheless, he may have a question of privilege, and the rules require that I should hear him.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I must say I respect the generality of your comment and the generosity of your thinking, but I rose initially on a point of order so as to point out the disorder in the minister's statement. May I switch to a question of privilege because my point of order has no reflection upon the hard working people in the department; they are just snowed under. My question of privilege is this. With the Air Canada strike, along with the delays that have been referred to in the passport office, there is a very real functional problem even when you do get your passport. The four passports that I as a member of parliament obtained today are for people who hope to fly on Thursday. How do I get these passports to Nova Scotia or the west coast? I only hope-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I can only say to the hon. member that he cannot have this done through a question of privilege.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, April 18, 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. McQuaid (for Mr. Woolliams):
That Bill C-150, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Parole Act, the Penitentiary Act, the Prisons and Reformatories Act and to make certain

consequential amendments to the Combines Investigation Act, the Customs Tariff and the National Defence Act, be amended by 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".
Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, last Friday we were still dealing with the famous clause 7 of this bill, which we wanted deleted, in view of its ambiguity, and above all-these are the points that were debated at length last week-the fact that it fails to take into account the views from our ridings. In fact, its passing would be opposed to the dignity of the human beeing.
Mr. Speaker, that is the reason why we keep on insisting and we would like to hear others, particularly members of the government, express their views and those of their constituents on this clause now before us.
We spoke about everything and we finally find this section so stupid and ridiculous that we wonder how such views could possibly be submitted in a place as dignified as this house.
The hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin), who spoke Friday on this amendment has just explained that because we did not get our way with the first amendments, we will at least make an attempt to improve somewhat this legislation. We want some points to be explained, and that is the purpose of this amendment.
These ridiculous and stupid things are leading the debate into dog houses, cow stables and pig pens, as we are now dealing with bestiality. It is imperative to respect human dignity, in such a way that the law will provide for the most freakish cases, too bestial for human beings. That is the purpose of this amendment.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
We want that problem to be examined seriously and hope that we have heard the last of the argument that the clause before us only serves to sanction something which is quite normal, undercover of the right to liberty. Mr. Speaker, we fail to see how individual freedom can be improved by saying that an act which is now considered criminal in itself will be accepted from now on because two persons committing it are 21 years of age. We believe that the passing of such a legislation is useless.
At least we would like the amendment to be made more specific by adding the words
April 21, 1969

"except as to bestiality and carnal copulation with a beast."
Mr. Speaker, we have now reached the point where we do not know whether we are protecting the animals rather than man through this amendment. Whatever it may be, the discussion requires that we point it out.
Mr. Speaker, it would be really important that the majority of the hon. members express their own opinion freely, because we believe that we should not rely on the vote. Recently, I happened to be explaining that, but my time elapsed before I could finish. I readily understood what was meant by "free vote". To speak of a free vote implies the existence of votes which are not. That struck me as rather odd. However, on seeing how the "voting machine" works, one finally understands what the expression "free vote" means.
If government members cannot have a free vote, they could at least rise and explain their reasons for voting in favour of the bill. If they do not want to do so, if they are not against homosexuality, they should at least have the courage to rise and tell us why they are for it. We have not heard from them yet.
We are aware of the opinions of our good neighbours of the New Democratic party who, under the guise of liberty, are generally in favour of such legislation. At least, they have clearly expressed their opinions. We respect them even though we do not agree with them.
However on the government side-we know it because we are told so behind the scenes and because we know their constituents who, incidentally are preparing to vote for the Ral-liement creditiste-they should express the opinion of the population on that matter.
That is what we would like to know. It is the role of this parliament to reflect public opinion through the people's representatives here, and I wonder if it makes sense that some hon. members should remain silent under the pretext that those are minor questions and that an actual and well-established situation must be clarified.
Even if 10, 15 or 20 per cent of the population were suffering of that so-called disease, homosexuality, it should in no way justify its legalization, and I wonder where one can find arguments to justify it? We should like to hear reasonable arguments.
When we are told that such a condition is due to an illness, we are quite in agreement; but if it is something that concerns mental or physical health, we should, I think, be logical
Criminal Code
and admit the true significance of the figures supplied by the experts.
Less than 1 per cent of homosexuals are truly sick while the rest are nothing more nor less than vicious people.
The younger ones are corrupted and raped by older ones. It is merely the decline of morality that accounts for the higher percentage of cases. If this house intends to legalize such acts when they are committed by persons 21 years of age and over, one must admit that it is legalizing a vice.
Let us see things as they are. As a matter of fact, if we were dealing with a medical problem, we would organize psychiatric clinics in order to cure these sick people, as is being done for alcoholics, the mentally ill and the handicapped. Why not try to cure these people instead of legalizing a loathsome act?
The other day, I mentioned kleptomania, as an example, but I was not taken seriously, I think. So, I will give it another try.
Even though a number of kleptomaniacs are not responsible for their actions because they are prompted to commit them by a morbid impulse, is it a reason for us to legalize theft for persons aged 21 years or over under the pretext that they suffer from kleptomania?
That is exactly what we are doing with respect to homosexuality. We approve of indecent, even criminal acts. It is an indictable offence in that it leads youth astray, relaxes morals, brings about decadence, causes disorders and paves the way to anarchy.
Mr. Speaker, perhaps this is one of the causes of the type of anarchy now prevailing. When one sees young people with energy to spare looking at their elders with a critical eye, wrangling and protesting and even committing acts of vandalism as a manifestation of their anarchic minds, it is because they do not accept the society that we prepared for them.
Are such bills likely to help us check this anarchictic movement?
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
Is that the example we set for the young people of the country? Is that the way to encourage our young people to put forth their energy for the common good of all? It certainly is not.
Indeed, what will the public reaction be when this bill is passed? I hope it is not.

April 21, 1969
Criminal Code
The distinctions that are made here, tor instance, are not always made elsewhere. The people, generally, do not take time to make the required distinctions and reservations. And so, what happens? In the eyes of the public, those of the young people of Canada, one thing will be legalized: homosexuality. There will always be professional go-betweens who will give 18-year olds cards proving that the bearer is 21. These things are being done.
As identification cards are still not compulsory, it will be difficult to tell who is 21 and who is 20, 11 months and 30 days. The latter will be sent to prison while the former will go free. To say that homosexuality is legal from 21 years of age on is erroneous.
The consequences of this bill must be analyzed. If, as I have said before, we are dealing here with a sickness, then let the Department of Health take care of it and not the Department of Justice.
As for the disastrous consequences of the passage of this clause for all our young people, they should be fully looked into. Indeed we must keep our youth wholesome and set them patterns to follow. We must be their models. Canadian Parliament must not set bad examples to all this youth which expects much more from us.
In fact, young people expect to be given the opportunity to develop their initiative. They wish to make full use of their energies. They are ready to work to attain their ideals, in short, to co-operate towards the development of the entire country. It is not by presenting such platitudes that we will succeed in proposing a really worthwhile ideal to our youth.
That is a major argument which should compel us to reflect more and to act a little more seriously. Event if we live day by day, we must always think a little further than the tip of our nose. We must always foresee what will happen in six months, in a year, ini two years and even what will happen to future generations, And what about the generations that will be scandalized by the passage of such bills-: it will be a stain- on our political history. That i-s why we insist so much. We have been discussing the problem for three days; in fact, we began the fourth day of discussion- today. We want nobody to say that we have not done our duty, as our constituents asked us to do at the last election.
They demanded that we oppose strongly the- omnibus bill. They also asked all candidates in Quebec to do likewise. That is why

even if we seem to stray from the subject when we ask government members to express their views, we are certain of reflecting the opinion of the majority of the people.
I said the other day, and the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Mongrain) did not seem to believe it, that there is not one person, not one organization that has asked me to support this bill, though it is the subject which has brought forward the greatest volume of mail, and inspired the most discussion. Indeed, we have the support of 100 per cent of the people; mind that: 100 per cent of the people.
Possibly, some may be ready to accept that; 'but none of them ever urged his member to support such a bill.
Mr. Speaker, we have to consider this situation most seriously. The whole country is watching, wondering about the decision we are going to make while aware that with the majority government, we can be forced to-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I regret I have to interrupt the hon. member but the time allotted to him has expired.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)


Mr. Cliff Downey (Battle River):: implications? If we sanction homosexual practices in. any degree, no matter how small, surely we will have great difficulty in maintaining that homosexuality is objectionable in a general or social sense. The defenders: of the amendment creating this new section have made a great thing of saying that it in no way implies official sanction of homosexuality. This1 may be true in a strictly legal sense, but not every young Canadian is a lawyer. There is bound to grow up a general public sense that homosexual practices are all right and tolerable if practised discreetly. In my view this amendment will simply open the door to a gradual acceptance of homosexuality in all its ramifications.
What this amendment says in effect is that homosexual gratification is entirely permissible and quite acceptable in certain circumstances, but in others remains a grave moral and criminal offence. This is a witches' brew. It is: only going to produce confusion in. the public mind and could very possibly lead to legal problems and entanglements far more complicated than those that the amendment seeks' to get rid of.
The trouble is that homosexual practices will no longer be completely forbidden nor completely sanctioned. The amendment is neither fish, fowl nor good red meat. It is a timid half-way measure that will satisfy neither those who hold that homosexuality in any form is an abomination, nor those reformers who regard it as a regrettable human aberration that is more a disease than a crime and something that should be removed from the Criminal Code in its entirety. I believe this amendment to be a weak compromise between rigid rejection by our society of homosexuality in all its manifestations, and the wide open, completely permissive society sought by radical reformers.
It would be interesting to know whether our legal authorities have been able to come up with any figures on the rate of conversion of young people to homosexual practices. I am not aware of any such figures but I believe they are a critical factor in the consideration of this amendment. I believe so because, after all, what we will be saying to our young people from now on, if this legislation carries, is that homosexuality is criminal and abhorrent but only up to the age of 21. There is something particularly absurd in setting an arbitrary age frontier of 21.
I would like to go back for a minute to the conversion rate of young people to homosexuality. It has always been stated that homosexuals are not criminals but are sick. This may 29180-491a
Criminal Code
or may not be true. But are not kleptomaniacs sick? Are not a great many murderers sick? Are not rapists sick, and a great many other people involved in crimes? But the fact remains that our laws are made to protect law-abiding normal citizens, whether it be from people who are sick or people who are unfortunate in some other way.
The argument has been made that the homosexual must be protected from blackmail. Surely our young people also deserve protection. The urge of these people to convert young persons to their ways is established. Let us not forget this. There are doubts in my mind whether homosexuals are in reality sick to the extent that is often presented in their favour. Homosexual practices are common in prisons where men are without women and vice-versa. They often occur in private schools where groups of men are shut up together for long periods of time. Does this make them sick? Where I come from people have a different terminology for such actions.
The minister needs to bear in mind that not all homosexuals are sick. Some may be sick, but there are a variety of reasons why people are this way. Definitely not all these people are sick, and I maintain that the law should remain as a deterrent, that the law is to protect average citizens, those who believe in the natural processes.
There are other things such as male prostitution to which this amendment will open the door. As long as consenting adults can carry on legally provided they do so in private, this is a very distinct possibility. There are so many ramifications to this whole problem that I believe we should strike out this amendment and go back to an extensive and scientific study of the whole problem in all its aspects. Such a serious and far-reaching social problem should not be tampered with as one small part of a large, omnibus amendment of the Criminal Code. For all I or anyone else in Canada knows, a thorough study of the question might indicate that homosexuality should be removed entirely from the realm of criminal law and treated as a social welfare problem, as are human weaknesses such as tuberculosis, mental illness, etc. As far as I can see all this amendment does is make things easier for some lawyers and judicial officers, without getting at the root of the problem in any comprehensive way. In doing so it will open the door to many possible developments which at this time we can only conjecture.
While I am on the subject of amendments to the Criminal Code, may I say I wonder

April 21, 1969
Criminal Code
why more significant amendments were not undertaken when so many subjects were under review. For instance, It would be interesting to hear from the minister whether his departmental officials have studied the legalizing of prostitution. I do not have the report at hand at the moment, but I recall seeing the results of a study carried on in an area of the United States where prostitution was legalized. This action resulted in a dramatic and I might say very welcome drop in crimes such as rape, muggings, sex murders and things of that nature. I would think the minister would be well advised to look into this aspect. It seems to me that the problem of increasing crimes of violence, sex offences and crimes in the streets generally should have a higher priority in terms of legal reform than should minor facets such as homosexuality, abortion and the like.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
I do not wish to labour the subject any further, but it does seem to me that with this amendment creating a new section 149A the minister has laboured long and strenuously and brought forth a mouse. At best it does no more than scratch the surface of a tremendous social question. At worst it provides semi-official sanction for a practice which the majority of civilized people still regard with revulsion. It may be quite clear to lawyers that this amendment does not constitute official sanction, but to the majority of Canadians untrained in the law and unable to judge its delicate nuances it will come to mean that the government of Canada no longer regards homosexuality and homosexual practices as offences against our social code. Whatever the legal profession and the judiciary may say, the adoption of this amendment will be taken generally as meaning that this practice has official approval.
Because I believe that any good this amendment will do will be far outweighed by its bad effects I suggest its withdrawal. In making this suggestion I would close by repeating what I said earlier, that the whole subject of homosexuality be taken up by somebody competent to study all its aspects and its position in our modern Canadian society today. To my mind this would be a sounder and more civilized approach to a question that most people admit is a huge and growing social problem.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, the spectacle the House of Commons

is presently giving of itself to the country with the discussion of the bill on homosexuality is rather sad judging from reactions which have been coming in from several areas of the country.
We must admit that sometimes humans are even more bestial than animals.
If possible, I would like the people to know through our media of information what we think of homosexuality.
Practically everyone agrees that homosexuality is a disease. Therefore, instead of making it legal, why not bring forward a bill aiming to build hospitals where those sick people could be treated? I suggest we should take this course instead of introducing in the house a bill allowing adults to commit such acts together.
I said a minute ago that human bestiality is more stupid than animal bestiality. As a matter of fact, when has one seen two elks or two bears play together?
There is an animal species, the rabbits, called the hot race. When has anyone seen two adult rabbits practise homosexuality or sexual bestiality? Never, because they know it is not the natural thing to do.
Mr. Speaker, we, who are reasonable people, have initiated in the house a debate to determine whether homosexuality should be legalized, whether we should allow two men or two women twenty-one years of age and over to have fun together, if they fell that way. That is more stupid than animal bestiality.
Mr. Speaker, they want to sanction such bestiality by means of a national act. As my colleague from Champlain (Mr. Matte) said a while ago: the population is against. Who suggested to the Minister of Justice, two years ago, that is so the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), who exerted pressures on him to have such a bill introduced in the house?
We see quite clearly that the measure should not only be up-do-date but also act as a sort of preventive medicine.
A while ago, my colleague from Champlain eloquently said that that bill is intended for our 16, 17 or 18 year-olds; but let them wait until they are 21 years old, and then they can give free rein to their instincts.
And to think, Mr. Speaker, that an educational program could so easily be set up right across Canada to correct that situation. There are so many beautiful women and young girls who are looking for husbands as handsome, if
April 21. 1969

possible, as the present Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) who would be all too glad to settle for a happy wedded life.
But, Mr. Speaker, instead of introducing a bill to educate the young, to encourage them to marry, and to give them the economic context in which they could found a family, the government invites them, through legislation, to prepare for homosexuality when they reach the age of freedom, 21. To think that we should lose such handsome men and beautiful women through the fault of the Department of Justice!
Mr. Speaker, we are not the only members who feel this way for some government members think exactly as we do. Not only are they afraid to speak up, but they have been forbidden to do so because the bill must be passed at any cost. There will be no free vote on this matter, because the existence of the government would be at stake; so the government demands that its "followers" vote for the bill.
I know government members who represent French-Canadian ridings, for instance, in the province of Quebec; they have received hundreds of protests against this bill. But they are too lazy or too cowardly to get up and say so. We are accused, we, of the Rallie-ment creditiste, of playing politics with this issue. Did we introduce this dreadful bill in the house? No, Mr. Speaker, we did not ask the government to introduce this bill.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
Even before discussing the omnibus bill we asked that it be split. The government said no, take it or leave it. Of course, I expect that members will vote as a groups on those clauses. The government has an absolute majority, and it will have its bill adopted. However, let us not fancy that the Canadian people as a whole will accept it.
I have just come back from a tour in Western Canada I have visited Vancouver, Edmonton, Regina and Winnipeg, and received several telephone calls following radio and television broacasts from persons who termed the bill as inhuman. I know there are sick people, but in that case, there is only one thing to do, and it is to cure them.
I received a few telephone calls from homosexuals who are in favour of the bill. They did not ask me to meet them, but, they told me it was a problem for them and that if they were now caught in the act, they might lose their job.
Criminal Code
Mr. Speaker, there might be an answer to their problem. Let us make them work longer hours and they will have less time to indulge in homosexuality. In my opinion, that would settle the problem. This legislation will not prevent them from practising homosexuality; on the contrary, it will merely sanction it.
That is why the Ralliement Creditiste strongly objects to the passing of this bill.
There are homosexuals in all classes of society. There are some even in colleges and universities. There are some even among the members of religious orders. We all know that; the fact remains that the homosexual act is still against nature, inhuman and, as I said earlier, very stupid. It is a form of "human bestiality" which is more stupid that "animal bestiality". I am convinced of it.
Mr. Speaker, the first thing to do in order to standardize human behaviour is to promote education. Instead of the CBC showing us television programs dealing with homosexuality, hippies, or people who live make a living from that, why not use the mass media such as television and the press to educate the adults?
We would thus be educating the young people who are growing up, our own children, instead of cramming their minds with the notion that at 21 they can engage in homosexual acts in all confidence.
In fact, Mr. Speaker, why not educate our youth? We refuse to spend money for education. We would be very happy to see every day, on the public network, the Minister of Justice educating the people in this respect. If he is not familiar with this field, let the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) undertake this job.
Thanks to television, radio and the press we could make the people understand that homosexuality is a disease, that it is curable and that it is possible to see the light.
We appeal not to the beast but to the reason of the beast. The government does not want to do anything. From time to time on television the Minister of Justice states that his legislation will change nothing, that the situation will not deteriorate further, that from now on homosexuals will not be put in jail and that it will be very well that way.
Let me state that the situation will change because this legislation invites the young people of 15, 16 and 17 years of age to engage in homosexual acts when they reach the age of 21. Why? Because the economic conditions

April 21, 1969
Criminal Code
which prevent them from entering into marriage, will oblige them to take their pleasure among men or among women.
Mr. Speaker, are we stupid enough to believe that man has been made for man? The good Lord created woman for man. God created man and woman; that is normal, natural and proper.


An hon. Member:: It is good.


David Réal Caouette: A Liberal, Mr. Speaker, tells me it is good. He is right.
Mr. Speaker, here is our point of view: for the last three or four days, my colleagues have been objecting to the passing of this bill. People think we are bores. They say: the Ralliement creditiste delays the work of the house. But it is really quite simple, we would not delay the house if this1 legislation were amended, so as not to forcibly legalize homosexuality. I repeat that homosexuality is perennial. It will exist fifty years from now, as it existed fifty years ago. But that does not mean' that we should legalize it, because we would be transgressing the laws' of nature.
Such is my opinion of the bill before us.
Animals do not do such things and we are rational animals. Nobody will convince me that the difference between reason and absence of reason lies in homosexuality.
If that is the difference, we should be ashamed of being rational beings.
Mr. Speaker, this goes against nature. Reason is being devalorized the introduction of such a bill is based upon bestial motive.
The Ralliement creditiste will keep up its opposition to such a bill. No matter whether it lasts one week, two or three weeks or even a month, we shall do everything possible to prevent the passing of this bill. Closure alone would stop our fight against that bill which I call diabolical.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I did not initially anticipate participating in this debate and certainly I will not do so unduly this afternoon. I say this for a reason advanced by members on both sides of the house during the discussion of the principles and generalities involved in this bin.
Those sections of the bill which are contentious, provocative and sensitive, dealing with abortion, lotteries and homosexuality, involve individual consciences and morality. I certainly agree with the Minister of Justice (Mr. 
Turner), and I do not think there is much disagreement in the house, when he states that law is not morality. Morality depends upon so many things. What you may find moral, Mr. Speaker, with your wisdom, I might find to be of another shade. Morality is an individual thing.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
When this bill came before the house and the debate approached, I was bothered about whether I should speak and contribute what little I can to the debate. If it is a matter of individual conscience and a new morality about which we are talking, be it homosexuality, abortion or lotteries, to name the three main ones, I ask: Can we ever have a consensus of conscience? I thought I had seriously decided not to participate verbally in the debate but to cast my vote and explain my action to my constituents at any time they sought an explanation, and in reply to letters I have received on the various sections of the bill but, having listened to the debate in the last three or four days, some of the loose language used on both sides of the house has bothered me very much and I have decided to say a few words on the subject. We talk about conscience. Some may say that this chamber is the conscience of the nation. On the other hand, having listened to many hon. members speak in the debate it is very obvious that in trying to resolve matters as the conscience of the nation and their collective constituents they are substituting their own consciences. This is not a new problem; members of parliament have faced this dilemma many times in the past. A member knows that the stand he takes may cause irritation, conflict and division in the heartland of his support, namely, his constituency.
In trying to resolve this dilemma it occurred to me that while we talk as the conscience of the nation and try to resolve this problem with our individual consciences, we have the unfortunate situation of members on the government side, for reasons of government policy, not being able to express their own views on the various clauses of the bill. I suppose this is really why I am contributing what little I can to the debate on the clause of the bill dealing with homosexuality. In my opinion this is the most bothersome clause in the bill. The right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) may miss many, if not all, the votes on the bill when they are called. I have another and personal reason in this connection. In my
April 21, 1969

case, not a bust in Saskatchewan but somebody in British Columbia may be the reason for my not being in the chamber.


Mr. Turner (Oliawa-Carleton):: Some day, perhaps.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: That will be my reason for not being in the chamber when some of the votes are called. Of all the clauses in the bill, the one dealing with homosexuality gives me most concern. Except for an amendment by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) on the question of lotteries, which I think has some merit, my predisposition as of now is to vote with the government on all sections of the bill other than that dealing with homosexuality. My mind could change, because it has changed since I began listening to the debate. It started to change when I tried to resolve this dilemma of conscience.
People have been using their individual consciences in this debate. Some of my hon. friends have been attacking amendments and trying to impose their own views on others. This is a matter of individual morality, yet there has been no expression of individual morality by members on the other side even though I know they have very individual views on this matter which is not political in the sense of most normal, political issues. It is unfortunate that in an area where politics means nothing, where party labels go out the window, we have not heard expressions of individual conscience from members on both sides. If we had, we might have a more relevant appreciation of what is the real conscience of the nation on this question.
We have not yet heard a member speak in support of any form of homosexuality or lesbian conduct. Let us not forget that women are involved in this matter. This type of conduct has to be performed between two consenting adults. The only thing the chamber has heard about for the last four days is homosexuality, but let us not forget that there are lesbians in this country. This type of conduct is not normal and no one has approved of it.
Are we the conscience of the nation, representing our respective constituencies? How can we radiate that conscience when the largest block of voters, not the majority of voters, is represented by those members from the great urban areas of Canada who have not been allowed to speak? I appreciate that my hon. friends in the New Democratic party support holus-bolus the amendments in this
Criminal Code
bill. They have given us an expression of opinion. The Creditistes and many members of the Official Opposition have spoken on this question and the dialogue has been joined. We have heard expressions of opinion sincerely held.
If there was anything that brought me into the debate it was the debate of Friday last when I listened to two speeches on this provocative and emotional issue. Those two speeches will be remembered for some time by this junior member. One was the speech of the right hon. member for Prince Albert, expressed in his particular style, a style that we shall perhaps not see too much of in the house in the future because of the problems of getting elected for some 20 years in this day and age. That type of speech actually may not glorify this place, but it adds lustre to it. The other speech was that of the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) who has a completely different debating style. But for once in this debate the dialogue was joined and their two views on the question of homosexuality were expressed in vivid, colourful, and in most cases logical language. Therefore, one in a dilemma could perhaps make up his mind.
I give full credit to the hon. member for York South and his ability as one of the real debaters in this chamber. However, unfortunately, in my opinion, he put forward a very specious argument. He castigated those who are against the amendment. He suggested that anyone who questions the amendment must be living in an antediluvian state. He castigated members of the opposition for their self-righteous or sanctimonious approach to the problem. In my opinion it adds nothing to this debate to use such adjectives about sincerely held views. If this amendment is passed, I could say it will introduce another, new Liberal law of licentiousness. But that is specious reasoning and I do not intend to maintain it further.
I do not think the cause of this amendment is helped when, for whatever reason, the minister of Justice refuses to admit that in effect its purport is to legalize homosexuality. The fact is that the amendment takes away a prohibition that at the present time makes this type of conduct illegal. My colleague on this side of the house who spoke before me said he was not a lawyer. I happen to be versed in the law to a degree, although not with the ability and experience of the Minister of Justice. However, I cannot understand why the minister should be specious in respect of what is in my opinion the substance

April 21, 1969
Criminal Code
of the bill. The amendment will give legal sanction to this type of conduct, and if it gives legal sanction then, ipso facto, by implication it legalizes this type of sexual act. If I referred earlier to abortion, Mr. Speaker, that was not my intention; I am concerned now only with the aspects of the bill relating to homosexuality.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
The hon. member for York South, in talking about the proposal in connection with homosexuality, stated both inside and outside the house that every progressive western country had enacted such a law. But the only two countries I have heard mentioned in this debate are Great Britain and Sweden. I am not saying we should never be among the avant-garde or that we should never lead the way, provided there is a tremendous body of public opinion behind us to show that an advance is necessary. The hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Murphy) told us that he got sanction for this position when he ran in the election last June. I must say I do not recall this issue as being among the election planks upon which the voters were asked to express an opinion.
The hon. member for York South told us, as I mentioned, that every advanced western country had adopted a provision along the lines proposed to this parliament. Yet the only two countries mentioned in this connection, to my knowledge, were Sweden and Brit-ian. Frankly, I am not over-enamoured by either the social or political conduct of those countries. Surely we in Canada can map out our own lines of social conduct. We do not need to lean on those, in my opinion, weak reeds. We were not told that New Zealand, Australia or any of the states of the United States had enacted legislation along the lines now proposed to us.
During this debate many speakers have sought to justify this amendment on the ground that today we are living in a pluralistic society. This is another catch phrase which is being bandied about increasingly. It is said we cannot define standards of morality because we live in a pluralistic society. What does the phrase "pluralistic society" mean? In itself it is meaningless, rather like that other expression, "don't let the state into the bedroom"-good public relations, maybe, but nothing else. The state does enter the bedroom every time we turn on the television set in the bedroom. Programs are under state regulation, even though it may not be the kind of regulation we would like. If a man

kills his wife in the bedroom the state will not remain outside.
What does "pluralistic society" mean? What kind of division does it imply? I do not care how pluralistic our society may he, or how many streams enter into it. It does not matter to me how many English-speaking, Frenchspeaking, Greek-speaking or Italian-speaking citizens make up our society. I believe it is one Canada though it has problems, but that the plurality of the different streams contained in it makes no difference to the setting up of a philosophy of law or a concept of morality. Ever since the Judaeo-Christian concept spread through a large part of the world, western nations particularly have developed a concept of morality and a philosophy of law based on this understanding. Yet there are those who would destroy this on the ground that we live in a pluralistic society. Reasoning of this type is specious and only confuses the issue.
The hon. member for York South was quite eloquent and, at one point, almost vicious in his criticism of my right hon. friend from Prince Albert, maintaining that my right hon. friend had destroyed his credibility as a defender of civil liberties in Canada because he held an interpretation of morality different from that held by the hon. member for York South. The hon. member for York South is himself renowned as a defender of civil liberties, yet I founid his contribution to this debate to be surprisingly weak.
I would remind hon. members that we shall later be considering a clause concerning the proposed breathalyzer test, something which will come closer to Canadians and involve the civil liberties of more Canadians than all this talk about homesexuality or lesbian conduct. This is an area in which civil liberties are directly involved. Yet it is private conduct. The minister shakes his: head. I agree it is not private conduct when a man takes his car and gets into an accident. But we propose going much farther. As I understand the amendment, it is to be an offence if a driver refuses to take a test.
I do not say I am against such a provision. Indeed, I would be prepared to accept it. I agree that statistics have shown a definite connection between liquor and the slaughter on the highways. The law is bound to move into this area, even though it cannot put an end to drinking. But if we are logical, and if we are talking about civil liberties, here is an area of definite concern. Under the new law it will be an offence to refuse to take a test. Yet private conduct is involved, and a
April 21, 1969

Criminal Code
driver who has taken the two or three one-ounce drinks, all that are necessary, will produce the reading of .08 which is sufficient to justify further proceedings.
I could be driving my car straight down the highway and straight into my own driveway-and it would be driven straight; I could be stepping out of the car, and a policeman could say: I suspect you came from that party at the Skyline last year during the Liberal convention and there just might have been some alcohol available there so I want to take a reading. I could tell him: I have only two steps to take before reaching my house, officer. I am glad you followed me. I did not exceed the speed limit. I did not wander over the white line. I just want to enter my house, kiss my wife and greet my children. So I shall say goodbye to you. His reply is likely to be: You cannot do that under the new law. You are committing an offence if you do not come to the police station and have a reading taken.
I am prepared to accept this restriction on my civil liberties because statistics show there is a real connection between drinking and driving. While there are no statistics to serve as a guide when we are considering the problem of homosexuality, I remind the house that no one who has spoken in the debate has approved of these practices. They have all expressed repugnance to them. If we can agree to restrict civil liberties in connection with alcohol, why cannot we take the collective opinion expressed by members of this chamber and say that, through we cannot legislate morality, surely we can help define morality and in this way give expression to the repugnance voiced by all hon. members who have spoken so far.
Members of the N.D.P. in particular have talked about justifying these proposals on sociological grounds. Reference was made to blackmail by the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Downey). There is no reason for there to be either more blackmail or less blackmail as a result of the passing of this amendment. I recall one case in my practice of a person who was being blackmailed. But it was not because of anything in the Criminal Code. The man was being blackmailed because of his conduct-conduct which the Minister of Justice himself says is abhorrent, repugnant and immoral. Why cannot we continue to use this provision as a means of defining morality?
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
I am not saying that this problem should be solved by imposing legal sanction or that there should not be a clause in the bill providing that somebody found guilty of this conduct should be punished. In fact, I should like the minister to tell me whether anybody has ever been charged under this section of the code. If you have two consenting males, who is going to squeal? In any event, I am not saying that legal sanction should be the way to attack this problem. I agree with my hon. friend from Battle River that there are other avenues of approach. Perhaps we should amend the bill to provide that anybody so found guilty should be given psychiatric treatment. Let the problem be investigated so we can ascertain what is involved.
Hon. members have mentioned many aspects of this problem. Unless something is substituted for the removal of the legal sanction, you cannot help but lessen the moral stigma. I have not heard one member say that this conduct is moral. I would vote against this homosexuality clause because it does not go to the root of the problem while at the same time it removes the legal sanction against offences with respect to which there have been no prosecutions. This amendment will make for misinterpretation and, as I said, will certainly lessen the moral stigma.


Bernard Dumont: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, we have to study amendments moved by the hon. members for Abitibi and Calgary North (Messrs. Laprise and Woolliams). Those amendments would require no debate if the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) had wanted to take the advice given him at the time of the introduction of this omnibus bill, when it was suggested to him to remove the clauses concerning homosexuality and abortion.
If both those clauses had been removed from this shameful bill, we would not have wasted three days protesting.
Do perverted promoters, free thinkers who tolerate homosexuals, think they justify themselves and the government of Canada, by saying that only the government is responsible for intimidating homosexuals by means of corrective justice if the act is committed in private between consenting adults? It is precisely an impure act committed with the mutual consent of participants.

April 21, 1969
Criminal Code
We put the following question: Can the government depart from its moral responsibility to the extent of showing no concern at all for the deterioration and the disintegration of our whole social structure? And can the Canadian Government, by renouncing its responsibilities with regard to these problems, escape the blame of encouraging immorality?
Our society is a fragile, artificial creation, designed as a whole, not by natural permanent forces, but by a man-made code of morality, based on Christian ethics.
Society is strongly opposed to sodomy, as it punishes murder or theft, because it strikes at its roots, namely the family. It is nonsensical to pretend, as our legislators do, that society can do without something which affects its own existence. One might as well argue that murder, as it affects the duration of life, could be left to the individual conscience, if one admits that homosexuality, which also affects life, could also be so classified.
A resurgence of homosexuality and an increasing tolerance of its practices are unseparable from a declining civilization, are the stigmas of a decaying civilization. Being the symptom of immorality and of a serious social ill, it speeds up the disruption of the whole social structure.
In the decaying cultures of Great Britain and Europe, such a state of mind has influenced the arts and recreation, showing itself in utterly aggressive exhibitionism, under the guise of a dazzling revolution.
Literature is poisoning the mind of young Canadians and Americans, where it is making common cause with drug addicts and beatniks.
In spite of the avowed pragmatism of its supporters, the bill designed to legalize homosexuality in Canada is a menace not only to young people, to parents and families, but also to society.
To condone such repugnant and socially bad morals is to deprive this young and virile nation of its most precious heritage.
I had the chance of hearing some of his observations.
I have here a letter from the Thetford Mines chief of police. In it, he writes, and I quote:
Last April 3rd, twenty (20) chiefs of police of the Eastern townships region made a study of it-
He means the bill omnibus.
I therefore send you a list of the amendments we propose, with a view to facilitating the application of that law and to serving better the public we have the duty to protect-

We have the right to propose amendments, because the bill should never have been introduced.
They would have several amendments to propose regarding the bill omnibus, and here is what he has to say about that:
That clause 7, amending sections 147 and 149, be amended by deleting paragraph (b); that is, the words "any two persons, each of whom is twenty-one years or more of age".
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
We are asked, in the light of the findings of serious studies made by police chiefs, to strike out those words at least, because this bill which, in our opinion, should not be passed, is now at a stage where we can only move amendments. Therefore, I ask the movers of this legislation to seriously consider the findings of those studies.
Moreover, I know that the conscience of several hon. members is being tortured these days. That of the Minister of Justice is, because he must go on defending his bill. He would have preferred to amend it but because of his party's tyranny, he must toe the line.
We have talked with several government members and I wonder why they hesitate so much to express their opinion freely in this house because some of them say that they would like to be allowed to vote according to their conscience.
In expressing such an opinion, they sometimes give the impression that they vote without considering their conscience and they are forced to submit to the guidelines of the party. In the presence of such obstinacy on the part of the government that takes decisions and forces government members to comply with them without a word, we are justified in asking ourselves whether there is not something hidden in that bill that nobody wants.
In fact, I do not see why, if it is so sure of the quality of its legislation, the government would not trust its members. If they consider the bill adequate and consistent with their conscience, they would not object to it and the Minister of Justice would be well advised to clarify things in that matter, if only to ease the conscience of those poor members who are forced to obey without a word.
In the field of homosexuality it must be kept in mind that even today, when two homosexuals want to commit such acts privately, nobody will denounce them and no sentence will be passed on them. It is only when one of them has a grievance that he will be able to lodge a complaint.
April 21, 1969

And if one of them is not consenting, the omnibus bill will not apply. Therefore, the omnibus bill does not bring anything constructive in the field of homosexuality. At best, it will create a climate of doubt and uncertainty, which will protect the active pervert and guilty homosexual. He will be the only one to lose by it and if there is no consent, I cannot see why we are being led to believe that this bill is going to change anything.
I think we are now at the cross-roads of history. And we, Canadians, should look back on the past, at the way our ancestors lived and ask ourselves whether the latter would not think we have indeed departed from the most sacred principles of our faith, if they could hear us now discussing this bill.
I am sure they are ashamed of us and that if we continue to give in, they will raise from their tombs, to put us back in the path of honour. Let us not put out the torch of faith which they passed on to us, at the cost of so many sacrifices and of so much blood. I believe that a nation which fails to remember is a dying nation, because one never builds the future of a country by disowning its history.
I cannot understand how one could be justified in voting for this bill. We must at least adopt those amendments and I am urging every one of our leaders to express their views since we are responsible for the wellbeing of our people and are able to do what is necessary in order to preserve moral values while there is still time.
I say: Let us not allow the morality of our people to deteriorate, let us not allow such evil depravity through legislation.
Therefore, I appeal to the Minister of Justice to amend this bill on homosexuality, if he wants Canada to remain the country which has produced so many valuable things.


Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, I also want to express my opinion and support the amendments moved by the hon. members for Abitibi and Calgary North (Messrs. Laprise and Woolliams).
I believe it will be a historical day for Canadians in general, if this bill is passed, because it seems to me that morals in this country will be rather debased.
Mr. Speaker, as a member of the committee on agriculture, I made a trip to the western provinces. Having seen all the work done to raise cattle of the highest quality, through better cross-breeding, we are coming back to
Criminal Code
parliament most pleased with our trip, only to deal with a matter that is so much against nature as cross-breeding between men and between women, and that leads me to say the next generation will not be worth much. No western farmer will vote for such crossbreeding. Having heard what we were told in the west about the qualifications pertaining to males and females, I believe that our reasonable Canadian race is becoming a race of poor quality.
Mr. Speaker I really feel sorry as I rise to take part in this debate this afternoon, because, along with my colleagues, I strongly opposed that bill on its introduction by the present Prime Minister, and we have kept asking that the whole matter be not put together in the same package so that Canadian Christian Catholics will not be forced to pocket such an affront, because they still believe in morals, even human morals. We have always asked the present Prime Minister to split up the bill, but we were refused.
When the justice portfolio changed hands, we felt happy, for we trusted the present minister more than the former one, since we are aware of his stubbornness. We hoped that the present minister of Justice, who is a father and has moral principles, would simply strike out these two clauses from the omnibus bill; but we realize in great despair that the head of the Department of Justice is actually not the present minister but the Prime Minister, who still exerts dictatorial authority over it. The minister has been unable to change the least thing in that famous bill initiated by the Prime Minister.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, I have no desire to crush the Minister of Justice. In fact, I am sorry for him, and if it were possible to weep for him I think that many hon. members would do it today. It seems to me that because of this party dictatorship which muzzles all cabinet members this clause will pass automatically since this is a majority government.
That is why in campaigning throughout the country the Liberal party said: give us an absolute majority and you will see how we shall govern. They won an absolute majority but I think the people will repent bitterly for the rest of their life.
When such filth is brought before us-and I call that filth without wince-I think that acts so much against nature should not even be discussed by any self-respecting government.

April 21, 1963
Criminal Code
But what can be done? This matter has to be dealt with since it has been brought before the house. They do not want to let it go. Here is a small bundle of rot which they do not want to part with. They want others to taste it.
Mr. Speaker, I think that the first one who is going to try to have me taste it, will be putting his life in danger. Yet other members must have received letters of protest since I have received some myself-over 1,500 of my electors asked me to object and to try to get these two clauses at least deleted.
But the cabinet members will not speak. It looks as if they have not received any letter. However, I have read rather eloquent reports in the newspapers. I shall not speak of letters I have received from my ridings since they will say that I have indoctrinated my electors.
I have collected some letters and statements published in newspapers outside my constituency which anyone can read. One of those articles was entitled: "Letter to the member of parliament" and had been sent by the Association of graduate nurses of Saint-Henri, Levis constituency. The hon. member for Levis has certainly received some protests. This is what the article says:
As for homosexuals, it is possible that some of them are suffering from mental illness which the state must detect and cure, but it is not the majority. You know quite well, the more the law will be permissive in that respect, the more corrupters there will be who will endeavour to take our youth along the road to perdition and moral depravity.
If druggists were authorized to sell to anyone, without prescription, heroin, marijuana, etc ... would there be fewer or more drug addicts? The answer is clear, is it not? If all obstacles are removed, vices and crimes will spread more than ever.
One must not forget that sodomy was the direct cause of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrha and that the decay of morals in ancient Rome led to the fall of the Roman Empire. Every day, one can increasingly note the fast decay of morals in North America, the disintegration of the family, the increasing ease with which one can get a divorce, the surrender of the citizens, parents and even elected representatives before their most essential duties-
I think that this nurse knew that her member of parliament was a Liberal.
The letter goes on:
-we ask ourselves in terror if the hand of God will not weigh heavy on us, as it did on Europe through two horrible wars within fifty years.
In the name of heaven, stand up and unite with all French-Canadian and English-Canadian members of parliament, whether they be Catholic or Christian against those iniquitous laws, because

the law of God must prevail over partisan or government solidarity, public and individual interests.
You may rest assured that all the people, particularly in the province of Quebec, will think more highly of you.
It is signed:
R.S.D., registered nurse
Saint-Henri,
Ldvis County
I believe in the riding of Levis there has certainly been some opposition. The letter I read did not come from my constituency or that of Lapointe, but from the riding of Levis.


Mr. Marceau:: No.


Mr. Gauthier:: The hon. member for
Lapointe says he did not receive any letter. His constituents are intelligent; I find it strange that they have not yet found his address.
Now, Mr. Speaker, we would like to hear government members state their reasons for endorsing the bill. Then, we could show the transcript of their speeches to their electors and tell them: that is what they think. But there is no way of knowing, because they remain silent.
Mr. Speaker, I have before me a document prepared by La Ligue des citoyens et proprietaries de Boucherville which takes exception to the bill on homosexuality. The member for Boucherville must have received it even though his electors may not know his address. (Laughter) In case he has not found the time to read it, I am going to do so, and I quote:
Please find herewith copy of a letter sent to Canada's Prime Minister, Mr. L. B. Pearson, and to members of the House of Commons-
Mr. Pearson is mentioned because the present Prime Minister was then Minister of Justice. The letter goes on:
La Ligue des citoyens et proprietaires de Boucherville Inc. has decided, during a regular meeting, to advise the House of Commons that they object to the bill on homosexuality.
It has been resolved that matters of a much more urgent nature were pressing the members of parliament than legislation on sexual offences committed by perverted persons. We feel that it is much more urgent to look after normal citizens which form a majority than to pass legislations for a small, albeit influent group, in order to legalize acts against nature.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to point out that I do not quote this article because the member concerned is here but rather because I came across it by chance. I do not want him to think that I hold any grudge against him because I
April 21, 1969

quote articles that have been published in his constituency. As a matter of fact, I hold him in high esteem and there are many respectable people in his constituency.
We respectfully submit that parliament should deal rather with the housing problem and the homeowners' situation-
I simply wish to advise their M.P. that they categorically object to homosexuality as well as to other provisions of the omnibus bill.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
I have before me a very important article -but time will not permit me to read it all- dealing with homosexuality, when it was discussed in England. So, as many like to follow in England's footsteps, I shall quote part of the article.
The lesson taught to the provincial Liberal party will have been useless! This catchall proposal, where the good and the horrible are found side by side (no doubt this is a trick to have the whole package approved) will turn into a second hara-kiri for the Liberals ... Too bad!
To induce and help reflection, other than the one-way consideration given the matter by the three guests on the program "AUJOURD'HUI" on the CBC's French network, on December 27, I would like to summarize two articles; the first, dealing with homosexuality, was written by Raymond Lacoste and published in Carrefour (Paris) when the British Parliament was debating a legislative proposal that has now become law, and the second, dealing with abortion, being a study made by the High Committee on Population and Family of France.
To legalize homosexuality?
On February 11 last, the British Parliament adopted a legislative proposal legalizing homosexuality. Raymond Lacoste, a Parisian journalist, comments-
The debate has brought to light the seriousness of the problem. There are from 50 to 60 million unnatural acts committed each year. The number of sexual crimes which, in 1939, stood at 5,000 per year, reached, in 1964, 20,000; during the same period and later-
Statistics are given-
23,470 while criminal offences reached a total of 303.000 to-
I do not know if an investigation was being carried out in the bedrooms, but apparently, there was some accounting made of all such things!
I continue:
An honest Labour member, Mr. Tommy, went on to say: I protest against the tone of alleged intellectual superiority adopted by the supporters of the bill. What they are asking, in a word, is that we give approval to male prostitution, when, a few years ago, parliament dealt severely with
Criminal Code
female prostitutes and gave chase to call-girls. Today, through some strange mental aberration, British legislators are showing more indulgence for acts against nature than for acts that, although sinful, are after all normal!
Raymond Lacoste goes on in some grimly humourous way which should make us cry instead of laugh:
"Grave" consideration was the order of the day during the debates. Needless to say that, when the vote was taken, the beautiful young men with mascaraed eyes who filled the galleries broke into applause so great was their joy!
The defenders of the dear boys put forward all sorts of arguments .. . Very soberly, Mr. Wood stated that homosexuality does not carry with it the risk of illegitimate births! Why send an uranist to prison? Is that not the same as condemning a Don Juan to a few years in a harem? (This argument put forward by Mr. Absi, a member, gave rise to laughter among his colleagues.)
There were strong objections to the bill. Some speakers showed the nonsense of a system which will authorize men of 21 years of age to commit an act while punishing individuals 20 years and 10 months old. But the promoters of the legislation insisted that there was no reason to deal more harshly with homosexuals than with lesbians who have their own club. They are spared by the British law. Many speakers emphasized the nature of complete demoralization caused by the gidian vice and its damage to society.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but his time is expired.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the house that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale)- Canada Council-Grant to Stanley Gray, request for investigation of political activities; the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Schreyer) -Air Canada-Winnipeg-Transfer of base to Northwest Industries Limited; the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise)-Canada Council-Grant to Stanley Gray.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of Bill C-150, to amend the Criminal Code, the
[Stage Direction]
April 21. 1969
Criminal Code
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. McQuaid (for Mr. Woolliams):
That Bill C-150, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Parole Act, the Penitentiary Act, the Prisons and Reformatories Act and to make certain consequential amendments to the Combines Investigation Act, the Customs Tariff and the National Defence Act, be amended by 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."
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
Mr. Henry Latulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I take pleasure in participating in this debate because of its great importance. However many members and some ministers consider it of little importance. This vital question is related to another moral issue which affects the existence of men and the respect they command in society.
Mr. Speaker, if our Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) are stupid enough to introduce legislation as bad and as indecent as this one, they should be expelled from parliament. This is no ordinary legislation which we are now considering, but degrading legislation which will lead our nation to suicide.
Knowledgeable people like the Minister of Justice and the Prime Minister have the nerve to introduce a piece of legislation as indecent and as degrading as this one. Mr. Speaker, we cannot find words harsh enough to describe there criminal actions which we are about to allow.
Mr. Speaker, this is what we are doing now. Here is patent evidence of irresponsibility on the part of the Liberal members. They will pay dearly for their mistakes. Someone will have to pay for all that. We have no right to impose upon the nation such legislation. It is immoral, unchristian, antisocial, inhuman and against anything you want.
All Liberal members are in favour of that. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) as well as a great many opposition members favour the passing of this bill. They consider themselves as saviours of the people. According to them, they promote the establishment of a just society. At the moment we are really degrading society. That is what we are doing. That is What the Liberals, the Progressive

Conservatives and the NDP members are doing now. Somebody will pay for all that. Such social injustice cannot last any longer. Somebody will pay because justice will follow its course. This degrading legislation will lead many individuals to destruction. They will lose their freedom, their personal identity, respect for others if they abase themselves so far as to commit such indecent acts. On account of this disreputable legislation, many citizens will lose 'their moral sense. The permanent stains on people's conscience are caused by the commission of those inhumane acts on account of the passing of those corrupting measures. The passing of such immoral, diabolical, corrupting and rotten measures will turn everything into muck under the nose of those who advocate them and share the opinions of those who are already in such situations and think it smells nice.
We are abusing the confidence of the society we should reform, which gave us the power to administer it, to lead it in the right direction and the necessary authority to provide it with real freedom, so that it may become a just society, a stainless, uncorrupted, pure society. We are not attending to our duty. We are degrading society because we do not want to assume our responsibilities. Some prefer to be led by partisanship.
I have here, Mr. Speaker, a letter I would like to read to the house. It was sent by a citizen of my constituency. Some members may say they did not get anything from their fellow-citizens in that regard, because the latter know that those members will not object to the passing of this bill.
As for me, Mr. Speaker, people know I am opposed to it. I have in my office more than 1,000 letters that were sent to me. I am going to read one of them. All the people writing to me beg me to stand against the legalization of such acts of barbarism.
In fact, I should like to table all those letters I received, if I were allowed to do so. The citizens also tell me I can give their names. As a matter of fact, one of them says in his letter he is not afraid of Showing his convictions. He is a great man, a great Christian. I quote:
If I had to vote-
-on this bill, I would vote against it, since the Prime Minister does not want to split it up into several parts. However, there are certainly many good things in this bill; but since the wheat has been mixed voluntarily with the tares, when
April 21, 19G9

it would be so easy to separate them, in conscience, I would have to vote against it.
Incidentally, by refusing to split up this bill into several parts, the Prime Minister violates-
-the Minister of Justice also.
-the conscience of his members; they have to choose between their conscience and their loyalty to the party.
I fear very much that within the Liberal party especially, the cowardice
-of the Liberals...
-in front of a Prime Minister who notoriously abuses his authority by failing to respect the conscience of his members, partisanship, and party loyalty will prevail over the duty of conscience. If several Liberal members were brave enough to say frankly to the Prime Minister; "Split up your bill into several parts and you let the members free to vote according to their conscience, or we shall vote against this bill, even if the government is defeated.
We will rather follow the demands of our conscience than those of party solidarity. I am certain that the Prime Minister would then give in. But I doubt very much that there is now in Ottawa, in the Liberal party, a sufficient number of courageous men to succeed in this.
This is what my constituents write me. The government members do not speak of it because they fear that they would never have the courage to express in the house the thinking of their constituents.
The author of the letter also talks of abortion. I will not speak of it, but I will just continue quoting the letter:
As for homosexuality, the state, in the words of Mr. Trudeau himself, wants by this bill to declare itself-incompetent to go into the bedrooms and judge the acts that are taking place there.
There is nothing to object to that except that the State should not allow bedroom privacy to be brought into the limelight.
That is what the passage of this infamous bill will cause to happen: public misbehaviour. And the minister will assume a heavy responsibility, if he refuses to split up and improve this odious bill. I go on quoting:
In short, if this bill legalizing abortion and homosexuality, is passed, public morality will be further degraded.
Is this man right? I shall not disclose his name, but he is a priest.
Mr. Speaker, all the letters I have received are along the same lines. Are people better in my constituency than- in those of government members? If the sectors of the government members or of the Conservative members who are going to pass this bill do not protest, it is perhaps because they are all corrupt also. There is corruption everywhere. Mr. Speaker,
Criminal Code
except in my constituency, where it is nonexistent, and I have just proved it.
So, through this corrupting measure, this stinking measure, as I called it before, we are degrading even more the society that we should make healthier. We are encouraging it to commit those criminal acts. It is an alarming, a shocking and a dreadful situation when people shun their responsibilities, prefer corruption and to run to seed rather than assume their responsibilities.
We should, on the contrary, fight this corruption, this barbarous and unconceivable degradation of the human person, because there is nothing greater or nobler than the human person.
The State should pass salvation laws, moral laws, and educate moralists. In order to heal this dreadful disease of society instead of keeping on corrupting it.
The legislation before us is an odious measure that will bring to their doom countless men who will become devoid of any conscience and any respect for the law. This loathsome law will lead to the degradation of our people and will have a serious impact on the future generations.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
We should do our utmost to prevent this bill from being passed, with a view to making our human society more wholesome, a place where men respect each other mutually. Indeed, they are entitled to wholesome, human and social laws. That is the type of laws we should pass, and not scandalous ones that will plunge our Canadian people into a disastrous situation.
Mr. Speaker, I shall bring my remarks to a close by reminding the Minister of Justice that it is still time to divide the bill; in fact he should substitute to it a more Christian, social and moral law. Then, we could in conscience vote for a human just and moral legislative measure.
I therefore ask the minister to withdraw his bill if he refuses to divide it in order to allow the members to pass such 'articles as may help society; otherwise, we will have to vote against it. But those who support this bill will bear the responsibility even to their grave.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, as expressed by the hon. member for Annapolis Valley (Mr. Nowlan), I believe
77G6

ignore or forget. However, it must be carefully studied and examined within' the geographical confines and 'limitations of a certain country. It is for us to consider but it should not be binding on us.
Let me refer plainly to some of the reasons advanced by the government in support of the bill. The first is the suggestion that any change is good, or that any direction in which the government moves must be the right direction. We hear this idea suggested on many occasions these days. Certainly we must change and press forward with alterations and improvements, but a change merely for the sake of change is not good enough. I suppose I am not making unworthy charges against the government because members of the government are in public life and must look to the public and try to show they are alive. My feeling is that much of the zeal and fervour shown by government members for this measure stems from the fact that it takes a new look at our social problems rather than a clear look and therefore they must be in the forefront in support of change and improvement. I think the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) made such a reference. It is not good enough to suggest that we must change unless the people come to the firm conclusion that the change is essential and for the good of all. The government cannot make such a change on the basis of having a mandate. I suppose that in a very general and vague way the government does have a weak case because this bill was exposed very shortly before the election and it might well be said to have been thrown into the various election issues. But I would like to guarantee that no member of the Liberal party or of any other party nailed a sign to his campaign headquarters saying, "We stand for the legalization of homosexuality to all or some extent". I know that the minister does not like the word "legalization" in this context. However, I would like to undertake that nobody said, "Let us think of this in terms of economics. Let us advertise Canada as being the haven of homosexuals". I would ask any member sitting opposite who campaigned in June of 1968 whether he made his campaign literature sound like that in terms of this area of the Criminal Code. If he did so, I would like him to stand up and disclose that he did. I would be very surprised if he did so, but I doubt very much that this will happen.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
Some members on the government side and even in the N.D.P. have lauded the minister.
Criminal Code
In fact, I heard the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert) praise the minister and I was quite astounded; it amounted almost to a canonization.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gerald William Baldwin: As a matter of fact, that day-I think it was Friday-I went outside, gazed at the river and expected to see the minister come walking across the water at any time. Then I suddenly remembered that the government already has one water-walker and only one is allowed in that party at any one time, even though the one they have is not doing very well and has fallen flat on his face in the water on many occasions.
We have had some discussion about the word "legalization". I recall reading the statement the minister made to the committee when he read from the Wolfenden report which used that word. The writer of the report had said that it in fact contained recommendations which would legalize homosexuality. I know that the minister stopped there and took exception. He was very careful to make his point at that time.
When you have a sanction, a prohibition with a penalty attached with regard to a great many of the acts of individual people in a society and you remove that sanction and penalty even to a limited extent, it constitutes legalization; it is the placing of the seal of approval in that limited sense. I think the minister was playing with words when he tried to get away from this.


John Napier Turner: Even your leader did not go that far.


Gerald William Baldwin: We come back to this question: Is our society as we know it, as we apprehend it, as we see it in Canada, ready at this time to accept changes such as are envisaged in this amendment? In this regard let us bear in mind that the change was not such a simple and quick one in the United Kingdom. If I recollect correctly, the Wolfenden commission was established in 1954. It sat for 2J years and made its report in 1957. It took from 1957 to 1967, a period of ten years, for the legislation which ultimately was enacted and now stands upon the statute books of that country to be brought about. Surprisingly enough, such legislation was introduced throughout by private members. I think the final bill was brought in by Mr. Leonard Abse in 1967 in the House of Commons. I stand to be corrected on that. In 1965 or 1966 Mr. Humphrey Berkley introduced a

April 21, 1969
Criminal Code
similar measure, but it was defeated. It took a period of gestation, which is a good word to use in connection with this bill, of some 13 years from the time the commission was originally established until the legislation was finally passed. It was a very well written report and its recommendations finally became the law of that country. Let us remember that it is a country different from ours. It has different mores, different social approaches, a different history and a different population in many respects.
I have no doubt that the officials in the minister's department have been considering this problem for some time, ever since the Wolfenden report and probably even earlier. About a year and a half ago there was a case which received a considerable amount of publicity in Canada. It concerned a person who was declared an habitual criminal because he had committed a third, fourth or fifth offence under the Criminal Code and had been convicted of this type of act. Arising from that the government, without what I consider to be adequate preparation and deep and proper study of the subject, added this amendment to the omnibus changes to the Criminal Code, which was then awaiting legislative approval, and brought the bill forward last year.
We have heard a great deal of talk about a pluralistic society. How pluralistic are we to become? Are we to have a set of rules for every small group? "Pluralistic society" is a silly phrase and means nothing. Of course we must adapt and modify our approach to social and criminal problems on the basis not of 90 per cent or 95 per cent of the population but much smaller divisions. But if we take this pluralistic society attitude and apply the reductio ad absurdum rule we will have a law for every person. What kind of anarchy would we then have?
Phrases such as "pluralistic society", coupled with glib cliches such as1 we must take the state out of the bedrooms of the nation, that sin is not necessarily a crime, and something may be morally wrong but not legally wrong, are frivolous, kindergarten slogans. They have been picked up to some extent and used by the news media. This drivel has been peddled all over the country.
I do not think a great many people have yet appreciated what is involved in this question. Unfortunately, under our rules today and the way we have approached this problem, I cannot make the kind of amendment I would like to make; the kind of amendment I would like to make is denied me. I would

like to place a moratorium on prosecutions under the legislation presently in the code for a limited period of two or three years. We all know that the number of prosecutions and convictions which have taken place in this connection is minimal. I have here a book published within the last few months entitled "Sexual Deviations in the Criminal Law", written by Alex. K. Gigeroff. This book makes worth-while reading for anyone who takes seriously his duties in this regard. The author conducted a study, in conjunction with another professor, of cases of gross indecency in a 12-month period in the city of Toronto. It was found that out of the 60 cases studied, 59 would not have been covered by this legislation. One case was in some doubt.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: They would have been guilty, anyway.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)


Gerald William Baldwin: Yes, they would have been guilty, anyway. This is the point I make. It covers a very small change. We are probably saying we shall take what has been the status quo and give it legal effect. I fear that by doing so we shall be setting this whole messy problem to one side and forgetting about it for the next 20 years. Had the rules permitted I should like to have proposed, instead, a moratorium on prosecutions and a thorough study of all the issues involved in order that the public might be given an opportunity to direct its attention to these social difficulties, after which the government could produce a number of suggestions dealing not only with the extent to which prosecutions should be launched but with the wider implications- the sociological aspects, the possibility of clinical study and treatment, and so on.
As a matter of fact, I think these sections should be out of the Criminal Code altogether. These matters might well be dealt with by way of special legislation brought into being, probably, only after the closest consultation with the provinces which, from the viewpoint of health and social implications, must have a great interest in the subject matter. It is only when society as a whole has come to accept that certain actions are repugnant or contrary to the usual mores that they can be made criminal offences or vice versa. If we look back to the period of Cromwell, we find that card playing, dancing on Sundays, being intoxicated and so on were all criminal offences. In due course public opinion changed, and these things were no longer considered to be crimes. In the last year of
April 21, 1969

the first world war, because of the need of the allies1 for industrial alcohol-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I have to interrupt the hon. member, his time having expired.


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


Gerald William Baldwin: It is a wonderful thing how quickly 20 minutes passes. I shall be very brief. I shall allow the hon. member who is to follow me time in which to complete his speech by six o'clock.
In 1918, changes were made resulting in complete prohibition. Only in the last few years has public opinion pushed governments into returning to a reasonable and sensible approach. Generally, changes made coincide with current thought.
I do not think the government is doing the right thing now. I do not think the course it proposes will have any real effect or be of lasting benefit. I intend to vote for the amendment which would maintain the law in its present form. Possibly the minister will tell me that careful analysis and study of this problem will not end with the passage of the legislation before us. We should consider the whole problem, not just one aspect of it. Before too long has passed the people as a whole should be given an opportunity to study its implications, reach a determination and decide in their infinite wisdom what should be prohibited and what should not. They can only do so if a fair and reasonable opportunity is afforded for an analysis of this problem, after which they could make their representations. For this reason, I intend to vote for the amendment, though when the bill comes to us again I shall vote for it on third reading.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I sat on the committee on justice and legal affairs which studied this bill very closely and made some amendments to it.
A few members of the opposition have carefully examined the bill to make some amendments to it and to prepare a report that we will be asked to adopt in a few days.
I should like to congratulate one government member, the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Hogarth), who did a very serious job within the committee and whose interventions certainly helped clear up some problems. Several hon. members have already made strong statements about those amendments. I agree with them, even if I do not
Criminal Code
use such drastic terms as theirs, for I must, all the same, make my representations. Homosexuality and gross indecency which are the subjects that we must study now are loathsome to me as they are to most of the members who sit on the committee and to most other hon. members.
Last week, I had the opportunity to get in touch with the English provinces of Canada, where I met several Canadians of various religions. I was surprised to find out that the Catholics in Quebec are not the only ones who object to the omnibus bill. On my return, during a discussion with some people, I read in Le Devoir under the heading "letters to the editor", a letter concerning the omnibus bill and written by a citizen of the town of Richelieu in the constituency of the whip of the Liberal party. In that letter, dated February 22, 1969 and signed by Mr. Hilaire Jeannotte, the author recognizes what I could check, during my trip, that 92 per cent of Canadians are Catholic or Protestant, that 92 per cent believe in God and in the Bible and today hon. members are responsible for the morals of 92 per cent of those Canadians who rely on morality rules. But this same Bible in which 92 per cent of the people of this country believe has condemned what we are trying to legalize today. That is why I find it hard to understand some of my fellow Canadians, my colleagues in this house, even some from the province of Quebec, such as the member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Mongrain), who has some constituents asking themselves some serious questions as to his moral principles. Is he for a morality where anything goes or a morality in accordance with the principles of his constituents? There is also the member for Levis (Mr. Guay)-


Mr. J. A. Mongrain (Trois-Rivieres):: I rise on a point of privilege Mr. Speaker. I suggest to the hon. member that he has enough problems in his own constituency. I can take care of those in my constituency. On the other hand, the people of Trois-Rivieres can think for themselves. The hon. member is talking through his hat about the Trois-Rivieres constituency.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, we finally succeeded in getting the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres to rise. I wish he could do it more often.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: I rise again on a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker. When the hon. member was touring the West last week, I

April 21, 1969
Criminal Code
expressed views I got from Catholic theologians from Laval University.


André-Gilles Fortin: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The points raised hardly constitute a question of privilege. I would caution hon. members against raising questions of privilege on every point of grievance. I shall, of course, hear the hon. member, but I wonder how far we should proceed in this way.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker. 1 admit that there are perhaps no grounds for a question of privilege, but when the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres says that he attends to the affairs of his constituency and that he is not interested in the orders, I might remind him that he said last week that he had visited the constituency of Champlain. And so, I think he should be more consistent in his statements.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to attack the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres on that point only. I have noticed however that he seldom speaks on anything but the Ralliement creditiste. One wonders if he is short of subjects to speak on or if his constituents elected him solely to speak on the Ralliement creditiste an the house.
I would like to mention another member, the hon. member for Levis, who is absent today, and whose constituents are beginning to realize 'that it is no joke to have a representative who never gets up in the house to express his opinion, particularly on an important bill like the one before us which concerns every individual and which will concern them even more in the future.
One can laugh; it is easy. One has only to do what the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres does so often: he spreads a smile across his face and stares at the other hon. members. Nothing is so easy as making fun of someone eke, for it takes much less intelligence to make fun of something than to try to understand it. The reason why the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres has always laughed at the members of the Railliement creditiste, is that it is easier for him to do than to try and understand them.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to come back to the problem before us. I was saying that the same feelings which are found in Quebec are also found in the other provinces. What counts is the population as a whole, the average citizen.
Now the population of Canada as a whole is presently against the legislation before us, which was first conceived and introduced in England. And now, inspired by colonialism, we are wont to copy a law which England has already adopted.
In the letter I referred to a few minutes ago, it was said:
It is a fact that England has just broaden its legislation concerning abortion and indecent acts. But why imitate the worse things done by this former mother country? Why such a miserable spirit of colonialism?
I come back to the figures I have just mentioned.
-According to the Gallup poll of January 15, 1969, 92 per cent of Canadians are Catholic or Protestant, that is they believe in God.
-and in the Bible.
We cannot insult that great majority by passing such a degrading legislation.
The horn, member for Compton (Mr. Latu-lippe) allowed himself to be carried away in denouncing this legislation. I fully agree with him, because we should not open the door to immorality. We are here to pass legislation and enforce the respect of the human being.
When the primary purpose of a legislation is not the respect of the human being, we must not stand for it. We are not here to protect animals and destroy human beings. We are here to protect humanity and human morality.
In this pluralistic society; obscenity, indecency, lewdness saturate our newspapers and our national television with publicity that is not human but rather bestial-
Today, we have come to the point where it seems the Prime Minister has been elected to put into practice a play-boy philosophy, a philosophy of human stupidity, in short a disgraceful and sad philosophy.
Mr. Speaker, some say that homosexuality is a disease. Everybody does not agree yet on that.
Some members must certainly have known pyromaniacs whose tendancy is to set fire. There is nothing wrong with being a pyroma-niac as such, but when a pyromaniac commits a criminal act, when he sets fire somewhere,
April 21. 1969

the law provides punishment. Therefore, what is criminal? It is not the fact of being a pyromaniac, but the fact of setting fire.
To be a homosexual is not a crime, but the act of homosexuality which constitutes a danger for public morals is, as yet, I think, a criminal act, because the government, our scholars people and our play-boys have not yet proved to us that it is only an illness.
We are here to pass laws that will protect human beings as well as the future of the nation and of our children.
On page 8 of the brief submitted by the Minister of Justice, there is a press release dated March 15, 1968, which reads in part, and I quote:
In respect of acts of gross indecency, the introduction must not be-
And here, the minister begins to have selfdoubts and to question his own legislation. He continues:
The introduction of these amendments must not be interpreted in any way as leniency towards this type of behaviour. Parliament has not, for example, made an offense as such of adultery, fornication or even prostitution, but it would surely be wrong to maintain that in so doing, Parliament approves or condones this type of thing.
Now, the Minister of Justice has expressed a doubt as to whether the changes made to the Criminal Code indicate a sort of tolerance towards homosexuals. He says that they are not dangerous people.
Mr. Speaker, since we shall give free play to immorality in adopting the bill before us, we shall be faced with increasing immorality. Be they sick or vicious people, we shall have more homosexuals from now on, for they will no more have reasons to fear.
Here, I wish to refer to the Prime Minister's statement on which several of us have pondered, that is that the government has no business in bedrooms.

Should the police be kept out of our bedrooms? Certainly not. If murder is committed in a bedroom should the police not go into that bedroom? Or if any other crime is committed against God and the welfare of the nation, should not the police have access to the bedrooms? Certainly they should. It does not make any difference where a crime is committed. In our bedrooms or on the street the police ought to deal with it. There should be no buildings closed to the police. I have certainly never heard of any policemen interfering with the rights of wedded love in this country.
Criminal Code

Mr. Speaker, if the government intends to set as a policy that it has no business in our bedrooms, it should also apply the same principle and recognize that it has also no business there with regard to income tax. And from then on, we could prevent the federal government from becoming pickpockets as far as taxpayers are concerned.
If the federal government has no business in bedrooms for morality purposes, it is no more entitled to go there to collect taxes in our wallets and in our pockets.
If the federal government has no responsibility regarding morality in our bedrooms, it should not have any regarding our wallets.
Mr. Speaker, last week I met a minister of health and welfare who told me that his predecessor had not lodged any action against the fathers of children bom out of wedlock. The girls, when pregnant, went to the welfare office to be paid the hospitalization costs as well as a certain sum, so to enable them to lead a normal life for a few weeks.
Now, that minister of health and welfare took his responsibility. He did not go into the bedrooms, because it was too late then, but he instituted proceedings against the fathers of those illegitimate children. That minister of health recovered the sum of $1,250,000 which had been received by unmarried mothers, when the fathers of their children had not taken their responsibilities. He took his responsibilities and from then on the moral conditions! changed. Why? Because instead of making morals more permissive in that province, the fathers of those children were compelled by the law to assume their responsibilities, to provide for the needs of the mother and to educate the children.
That proves that when the government extends the limits of morality, there is nobody left to take responsibilities. When the government fulfills its duties, it is possible not only to save money but also to direct society towards the moral principles1 we have been elected to the house to defend, in which our constituents believe as do those of the hon. member for Mereier (Mr. Boulanger) in front of me, who remains silent and has not yet told the house what the population of his riding thinks about the bill.


An hon. Member:: He is voiceless.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: He is unable to speak.

April 21, 1969
Criminal Code
Mir. Speaker, I have here another article of the Montreal Star of December 26, 1968, which deals with law and morals. I quote1:
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)

In one of its most controversial provisions, for example, the bill removes the present ban against acts of "gross indecency" committed between two adults in private, but it leaves the code without any definition of "gross indecency".

According to that article, it is the intention of the government to take out of the Criminal Code the penalties imposed for gross indecency. But it has not yet been clearly explained what is meant by gross indecency. Neither the Minister of Justice nor the officials of his department nor the legal officers nor the lawyers have been able so far to do so.
And it goes on to say further, and I quote:

The argument for this approach has been advanced in England by Lord Devlin. No society, he argues, can exist without shared ideas on politics, morals and ethics.
tTranslation]
This means that no society can survive without any policies, without any morals and without any code of ethics.

A fundamental morality, a common agreement as to what is good and what is evil, forms the magnet which prevents the members of society from drifting apart.

He means by that that we must have a definition of what is moral and of what is not, otherwise, we shall surely take the primrose path.

The bondage is part of the price of society; and mankind, which needs society, must pay its price.

And, further on-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: May I continue for a few minutes, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Has the hon. member unanimous consent to continue.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Apparently there is not unanimous consent for the hon. member to continue.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Would hon. members permit me to continue for fifteen minutes?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question?


An hon. Member:: Six o'clock.


Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The time being six o'clock, this house will take recess until 8 p.m.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
Roland Godin: Mr. Speaker, I feel duty bound to speak again on this serious matter.
I find it rather surprising that the majority of speeches are delivered by opposition members and I find difficult to understand why serious-minded members, like the hon. member for Laval (Mr. Roy), for instance, do not comment on this matter.
In view of the fact that the hon. member for Laval is an agronomist, he could certainly inform us as to the act of bestiality.
I should also like to hear the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) who, as a former professor, could give us details as to the way the government sees things in the event that the bill should be passed.
Would so-called organizations for the breeding of animals, be set up with schools-


Mr. Pilon:: A circus.


Mr. Gcdin:: Thank you very much. This is what I meant to say.
Will the hon. member for Chicoutimi (Mr. Langlois) rise also to make known the impressions of the Catholic population of his riding?
April 21, 1969

I ask myself the same question with regard to the hon. member of Lac-Saint-Jean (Mr. Lessard).
Has the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean who is a union representative, made representations to the cabinet asking it to support the amendment before us? Since he was busy his afternoon, the hon. member for Manicou-agan (Mr. Blouin) has not dared say a word as yet.
The hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Asse-lin) has made known his views. Since these are two bordering ridings, are the people of Charlevoix different from those of Manicoua-gan? Those are the questions we are asking ourselves, Mr. Speaker, and which we would certainly like to have answered.
I am convinced that the co-chairman of the committee (Mr. Bechard) will make his views known towards the end of the debate. Some of my relatives live in that beautiful county and like the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Bechard) I know that the people in Bonaventure are not in favour of this bill.
I hope that the hon. member for Louis-Hebert (Mr. Cantin) whose riding borders on mine will also be bold enough to make his impressions known and to tell us how he will vote. We would like to know his way of looking at things, of understanding and explaining them and to know what are the advantages he hopes to get from this bill. This would help us to understand many points.
Those are questions and answers in which his electors and the whole area of Quebec are interested.
Mr. Speaker, it is a well-known fact that the constituency of Portneuf which I have the honour to represent has been reconstituted as it were. The last election legalized the new limits proposed by the Electoral Boundaries Commission. Ini fact, the present constituency of Portneuf is now made up of 2,500 families from the constituency of Langelier, 9,500 families from the riding of Montmorency and 6,000 families! from the old constituency of Portneuf.
If we consider that the number of families in the former constituency of Quebec-Mont-moremcy exceeds the number of families in the constituencies of Langelier and Portneuf put together, it is not quite true to say that I represent Portneuf, since the greatest part of my constituency is situated in Quebec-Mont-morency.
And I am still waiting the representations of the hon. member for Montmorency (Mr. La-
Criminal Code
flamme) concerning clause 7 and the amendment. Will the representative of the other part of the former constituency of Quebec-Montmorency tell us what he thinks of it?
Do the families of this constituency, reverend father, or Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gilles Marceau: That is not bad. Yes, your grace.


Roland Godin: I made my last sermon in church last Sunday. Is the population of this part of the constituency different from that of the other part?
Mr. Speaker, had the electoral boundaries commission been made aware of the introduction of the omnibus bill? Had the commissioners been ordered to separate the families favouring homosexuality from those who did not?
Since the constituency of Portneuf also got a part of the county of Langelier, which is located in the heart of the city of Quebec, the whole town would like to know the views1 of the hon. member for Langelier.
Since the archbishopric of Quebec is located in the beautiful county of Langelier, I think the hon. member, should have the opportunity to speak on this legislation. Automatically, he would be caught between the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) and the archbishop of Quebec.
Anyway, I do hope that we will finally hear his words which will weigh heavily in the scales and which could give quite another direction to this debate.
I would like to quote what Father Alphonse Beaulieu wrote in L'Action in December 1967:
That the legislator should be placed in the puzzling alternative of having to betray his religious beliefs or save his party, is beyond understanding .. . the freedom of the members of parliament is illogical in our progressive world and indicates the weakness of our parliamentary system. Imagine removing the basic freedom, the freedom of religion, to enact licence!-
-In the very name of "pluralism" we should respect the beliefs of the member of parliament and not force him to vote like a machine on such a major piece of legislation.
Here is another article by Pierre Lapointe published in December 1969 in L'Action, and I quote:
Since we are living in a Christian country, our M.P.s should remind the House of Commons of what the Bible says:	that the sin of Sodom
(homosexuality) brought down the wrath of

April 21, 1969
Criminal Code
Heaven ... that the corruption of the earliest inhabitants of this world was punished by the great flood ... They should also be reminded that moral corruption was the primary cause of the wars which steeped Europe in blood, the cause of the invasions of the Barbarians who brought the Roman Empire to its doom. We are threatened with a third world war and the yellow peril is at our door.
In those days, people used to say:
If P. E. Trudeau, a bachelor, is too blind or too insensitive to these dangers, he is unworthy of being the Minister of Justice of a Christian country.
Mr. Speaker, the moment of decision has come, I believe: either we accept the immutable values and the ideal coming from God or we stagger down the slope leading to the most cowardly selfishness and to the social anarchy, which brought the downfall of pagan Home.
Such are the things at stake. I feel that every member should do his utmost to pass only adequate legislation, and if the hon. Minister of Justice, who is piloting this bill, still has a glimmer of decency in his soul he should reverse his stand and support the amendment in question.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. My understanding is that the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) has already spoken on this amendment.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I should like, with the permission of the house, to direct a question to the hon. minister or to his parliamentary secretary, in order to elucidate something which, in my opinion, should be clarified. .
It has to do with paragraph (2) of section 7, where it is said and I quote:
-an act shall be deemed not to have been committed in private if it is committed in a public place, or if more than two persons take part or are present;
Mr. Speaker, here is my question. Since-


John Napier Turner: On a point of order-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has already spoken, and he cannot speak again.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to make a speech but put a question to the minister to clear up a few things.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I must advise the hon. member that if the minister were speaking he could pose a question, but as the minister is not speaking he cannot ask a question, unless of course there is unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Apparently there is not unanimous consent. Is the house ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said amendment? All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion, the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to section 11 of Standing Order 75 the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The house will now proceed to amendment No. 10.


Mr. Laprise:: I rise on a point of order. I see that amendment No. 9 is on the order paper. To my knowledge, it was not defeated. I would therefore like to know what happened.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. On Friday last it was ruled and agreed to that we would deal with amendment No. 9 following the discussion of amendments Nos. 10 and 11.


Stanley Howard Knowles: 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 from clause 13 thereof paragraph (a) and paragraph (b) of sub-section (1) of the proposed new section 179A of the Criminal Code.
April 21, 1969

He said: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the purpose of my amendment is very clear. I also believe that there are many members of the House of Commons who support what I am seeking in this amendment, and when the vote on it takes1 place I hope that the majority will vote in its favour.
Clause 13 of Bill C-150 is the main part of this bill dealing with the question of lotteries. Its main effect is to liberalize the law of Canada with respect to lotteries, and it does this under several headings. Regardless of any views that some of us may have about lotteries generally, and I do have such views, it is not our purpose to oppose the attempt to widen the law so far as ordinary games of chance and things of that sort are concerned. We agree that if the law is to be widened with respect to office pools, raffles, bingos, games' of chance and so on, there should be strict controls, and in that respect we think that the provisions of clause 13 are commendable.
However, Mr. Speaker, there are two things provided in clause 13 that many of us in the House of Commons do not like, and I make the strongest appeal I can to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) to reconsider his position. The two things I refer to are the authority that is provided on the one hand for the federal government to conduct lotteries, and the authority provided on the other hand for provincial governments also to conduct lotteries.
Again, if I may multiply a few words to make our position clear, those of us who are speaking on this issue are not asking for any change in the government's position so far as lotteries generally are concerned, but we do ask this house to take a stand against state lotteries. That is the purpose of my amendment which seeks to remove from clause 13 paragraphs (a) and (b) of sub-section (1) of the proposed new section 179A. In taking this stand, Mr. Speaker, we do so not with any blue law approach but because, in the main, we feel that lotteries as a way of raising money for the state or as a way of helping people to win prizes are not good economics.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
In our view state lotteries are nothing more than a form of taxation. In fact the one widespread lottery under public auspices being held in this country at this time is called a voluntary tax. The thing that is wrong about lotteries as a form of taxation is that it is the most regressive form that could
Criminal Code
be imagined. That is saying something in this House of Commons because this government has done very well in dreaming up regressive forms of taxation. I think one of the worst we have ever had is the two per cent social development tax that is still being collected, even though parliament has not approved it. But lotteries are even worse than that. When lotteries are used by governments, federal, provincial or even municipal for that matter, for the purpose of raising taxes there is no relationship whatsover to the ability of people to pay. In fact, those who are least able to pay are those who are enticed by the possibility of winning a prize. They are the people who can least afford to lose their money in this way and they are the ones who lose the most.
If people wish to take part in lotteries conducted by private organizations, by various charities and others on a voluntary basis, that is their business. But surely, it is something entirely different for the state to use lotteries as a means of raising revenue and for the state to put the stamp of approval on this method. The hope, of course, that the government has in resorting to lotteries is that people will participate because they hope they will win. The fact of the matter is most people lose in any kind of lottery. So does the state. The few examples that there are, are not being placed before us as reasons that we should pass this legislation. Reports from the state of New York indicate that the attempt there to raise money by way of a state lottery has not been successful. We hear many references to the Irish sweepstakes, but we do not hear much said about the great social improvements that have taken place in Ireland on the basis of money raised in the sweepstakes. The reason is clear: there are no such improvements. While we hear about the widows and others Who win the lotteries held by the city of Montreal, there is no suggestion that the lotteries being carried on by the city have solved that city's financial problems.
We think that on every count this is the wrong way to go about things. In our view it ought not to be passed by this House of Commons. I recognize the government's position that this legislation is only permissive. The government argues that the passing of clause 13, and the eventual passing of this bill, does not bring federal or provincial lotteries into being. But permissive legislation has a way of being used. In my view there is no doubt that if this legislation is passed it is only a matter of time until provinces, under pressure, will resort to it. It can be only a matter of time

April 21, 1969
Criminal Code
until the federal government, under that same kind of pressure, will resort to this retrogressive way of raising money for the state or of helping people put more money into their own pockets. That is the reason we urge very strongly that this house vote for my amendment and delete these two subparagraphs from clause 13 of this bill.
We have had a good deal of correspondence about Bill C-150. I should like to say that I am particularly proud of the kind of letters and submissions that have reached my desk from the churches and church organizations which have written me. I have some of them here on my desk tonight, but I shall refer to only one of them. I am picking one that is typical and also one which I think states the case very well. Normally, one can expect churches to take a careful position on these matters of social concern. It has interested me that the major churches that have been in touch with me-I admit that most of them are churches on the Protestant side but in these ecumenical days that distinction does not matter-have taken a progressive stand on questions such as abortion, homosexuality and so on. But we are not now discussing those subjects. The thing that interests me is the stand that most of the churches have taken on the question of lotteries and I find myseilf in agreement with them.. They admit their general dislike for lotteries in any form. They admit that in their view games of chance as a way of making economic progress for the individual or anybody else are not good. But they are realistic enough to admit that it is just about impossible to legislate against every game of chance there is.
Nevertheless, these churches have come down strongly and said that in the name of all that is decent, sensible, economic and just they cannot agree with the provision in Bill C-150 in respect of state lotteries, either federal or provincial. I said I have a number of letters and that it is my intention to pick up and read only one of them. This happens to be from the Charleswood Mennonite Church, situated in metropolitan Winnipeg. This is a church other than the one I happen to belong to and Charleswood is not in my constituency. I thought this letter was one of the best which came to me and it sums up the position stated in most of the letters from churches and church organizations. It came over the signature of Mr. Rempel, the pastor of the church, and Mr. Keyler, the chairman of the church organization. I was told in this letter, as no doubt was the member for Winnipeg
[Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre).!
South Centre (Mr. Osier) because I believe since this church is in his constituency he would have received the same letter, that the members of this church were anxious to submit their comments on the various matters in respect of the Criminal Code but before they did so their congregation spent five Sunday mornings during December and January discussing the issues of lotteries, abortion and homosexuality.
The members of this congregation went over the matters very carefully with experts and finally decided to submit their comments to various members of parliament. They made it clear that the letter they submitted to us in its final form was approved unanimously by the members of that church congregation. I should like to read what this church said on the question of lotteries. It is brief, to the point, and I think we should pay attention to it:
We recognize that office pools, raffles, bingos, and other forms of lotteries are widely used. Although these types of "games of chance" appeal basically to people's weaknesses, their discontinuance cannot be effectively legislated. It is our opinion, therefore, that privately operated lotteries should be legalized, but they should be strictly controlled by the Government, as is wisely proposed in Bill C-150.
That is one paragraph. I think it is well stated. I think the Charleswood Mennonite Church is to be commended for its position.
[DOT] (8.30 p.m.)
The letter continues with this one short paragraph:
We are strongly opposed, however, to the federal and provincial governments using lotteries to raise revenue. We feel that this method of fund-raising has been shown to be both inefficient and unjust. It is primarily a tax on the weak and the poor.
I commend this particular congregation on that statement in respect of lotteries. This congregation has dealt with the whole broad question including private and state lotteries, and I think its position in both respects is realistic. I am sure, in fact, that there are many members of this house who take this position, and I hope they will so indicate either in the speeches they make on this amendment or in their votes when the time for voting on this amendment arrives.
In that connection, I hope we will demonstrate at some point during the report stage that this bill is not all cut and dried. I was pleased that the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs made a number of changes to Bill C-150. This demonstrates the
April 21. 1969

validity of the committee system we are trying to put into effect. 1 know that a friend of mine along the front row a bit objected the other day by saying the committee was a failure. I think in his view it was a failure because it did not do what he wanted it to do. Among other things, that committee made changes, some of which were opposed by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner), and that is good.
The Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, whatever one might say about the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications, did a good job on this bill. Now that we are at this report stage, which I think is an innovation that is good but is being put to the test right now, it would be unfortunate if out of the 44 amendments put down by members not one of them was approved when it came to a vote. I hope this is one on which members will vote as they feel they ought to, without regard to what the government or the party may have said, with the result that we will take the position we do not want this regressive form of taxation or the injustice involved in state lotteries.
Having made these several references to taxation, may I go on and put it this way. What on earth is the point of having a Carter Royal Commission go into the whole question of taxation, and what is the point of having the government study that report and put all those people in the Department of Finance to the task of going into the ins and outs of it in order to bring down a white paper to develop a taxation system that is fair, if we then turn around and shoot the thing full of holes by bringing in state lotteries which have no relationship whatsoever to any kind of fair taxation system? That is why I take this stand. There are opinions on the moral and social nature of lotteries. It has been said under other headings that it is pretty hard to get a consensus on most social judgments and moral opinions. Surely, when it comes to cold, hard economics we can get a consensus. I hope there will be sufficient support for this amendment that when the time comes for the vote to be taken it will carry and we will delete paragraphs (a) and (b) from sub-section (1) of the new section 179A of clause 13 of the bill.
If this happens there are one or two consequential things that would have to be done, such as relettering some of the other clauses.
Criminal Code
I was advised before I put down my amendment that this would be within the prerogative of the law counsel, so we have no problem there. All we need to do is get this house to take the proper position on this issue.
I said earlier I recognized that what the Minister of Justice has in mind is that this is only permissive legislation. When the minis-er was speaking on second reading, I think he said that what this bill does in this respect is provide for a sort of local option, leaving it to the federal or provincial governments to have lotteries or leave them alone as they may wish. This provision will not work in that way. If you put the stamp of approval on state lotteries by this kind of legislation, it is only a matter of time until we have them.
As a matter of fact, I find it difficult to take that argument from the Minister of Justice, because if he is putting in this clause, and he remains the Minister of Justice, he would be the one to bring in an order for state lotteries. If he does not intend to do that, why is he putting this in the bill now?
It is not my desire or my intent to speak at length on this matter. I hope I have made my point. I do have one other point on this legislation I wish to draw to the attention of the minister. Before doing so may I emphasize that so far as I am concerned, I am not putting this matter on any narrow blue law basis. I am putting it on the basis of what is common sense and good economics. I have cited the position that the churches have taken because I think they are to be commended for the realism of their approach. As I say, the two paragraphs I read from the letter from the Charleswood Mennonite Church on the outskirts of Winnipeg I think represent the essence of the church's opinion and this House of Commons ought to pay attention to it.
I said I had one other piece of evidence. I think the Minister of Justice is acquainted with the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Basford). In fact, I believe they are good friends. A year ago during the leadership campaign I think they were on the same team. At any rate, I should like to introduce the Minister of Justice to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs who, like others' in the government, runs around making speeches. He has some public relations people in his department who give us copies of these speeches.
The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs made a speech on Friday of last week at the annual meeting of the British Columbia

April 21, 1969
Criminal Code
division of the Consumers' Association of Canada at the Grosvenor Hotel in Vancouver, British Columbia. We get so many of these that one does not know whether he should take the time to read them all, but one learns to leaf through them.


John Napier Turner: You only read the ones you agree with, Stanley.


Stanley Howard Knowles: had to go to the last few pages of this one to find what I wanted, and it came as a surprise to me as I did not expect it. I expected to throw this speech away. In any event, I got to the end of the speech and found that the minister discussed with the members of the British Columbia division of the Consumers' Association of Canada the folly of games of chance and prizes as conducted by the retail trade in the United States and Canada. He expressed a strong belief that this sort of thing should be curtailed.
The minister, in referring to these games and gimmicks in the United States, suggested that the chances of winning prizes vary from game to game but are found to be monetarily low regardless of the game. He said that, as a whole the programmed chances of winning a cash prize per store visit were about 3.4 to 1,000. He referred to a quotation from an article which appeared in the United States.
The minister went on to refer to the fact that once the odds of winning a major prize feel to zero, the advertising implications reached a peak. Once the one major prize was won in a particuliar area the advertisements began to emphasize this fact. The clear implication was that other prizes of the same size were available when in fact they were not. Consumers who believed they were available were being deceived. I could go on with these statements by the hon. minister's friend who stood up before the Consumers' Association of Canada and stated that one of the things we must get rid of was this practice of games, chances, prizes and gimmicks in which stores indulge in an attempt to entice people in simply because of their gambling instinct. Many of these people feel they are going to win, but the minister made it clear that they do not have a chance.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
What kind of a situation is this? These ministers are sitting too far apart. We have one minister saying we must get rid of games of chance conducted by the retail trade in this country while another minister sitting at the
[Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre) .1
other end of the cabinet benches, is saying it is time to permit games of chance and lotteries conducted by the government itself. How ridiculous a situation can you get? These two ministers are good friends, and I hope they will get together. I hope the Minister of Justice will take the advice of his friend the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, to the effect that there is just no economic sense in trying to make money, trying to raise revenue from the people of this country by means of lotteries. If the people of Canada want to conduct lotteries in a private way, our law for a long time has said it is all right, and the law still says this. But let us not put the stamp of approval on state lotteries run by federal government or by the provinces. This is why I ask for support of this amendment.
I emphasize that this amendment is not a package involving several propositions. There is no confusion here. There is no question of having to vote one way or the other because of all the elements involved. There is one clear, simple issue in this amendment, and that is its opposition to state lotteries, federal or provincial. I hope the house will support me in that opposition.


Mr, G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I shall be very brief. In our approach to this matter we still retain the same freedom of action which was referred to by our leader at the time of second reading of the bill. I intend to support the principle put forward by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). I can say in very few words why I intend to do so. I accept many of the comments made by the hon. member. I would like to think that the people of Canada have had enough of gambling, They gambled last June 25.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gerald William Baldwin: Hoping for a royal flush, they got a busted straight, and lost.


An hon. Member:: They lost badly.


Gerald William Baldwin: I have very considerable reservations about the federal government and the provincial governments becoming involved in lotteries. Some years ago I sat on the estimates committee which looked into this issue. We examined the records and figures relating to the lotteries conducted by the Irish Republic. Although we never made a report or any recommendations which came into the house, at that time our conclusion
April 21, 1969

was that the amount of money which found its way into the realm of hospital improvement in the Irish Republic hardly justified the work and problems created by allowing the state to become involved in gambling. I fear that if this were done in Canada, very serious problems could arise with regard to administration.
While I have every intention of supporting the other amendments which the government has introduced I cannot see my way clear to supporting the section with regard to lotteries. Therefore, I intend to support the amendment offered by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I would like to deal with the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) concerning lotteries; it seems reasonable to us. Actually, the purpose of clause 13 is to add section 179A of the Criminal Code which reads as follows:
(1) Notwithstanding any of the provisions of this Part relating to gaming and betting, it shall be lawful
(a)	for the Government of Canada to conduct and manage a lottery scheme in accordance with regulations made by the Governor in Council and for that purpose for any person in accordance with such regulations to do any thing described in any of paragraphs (a) to (f) of subsection (1) or subsection (4) of section 179;
and also to enable the-
(b)	For the government of a province either alone or in conjunction with the government of another province-
-thus becoming a sort of co-operative lottery or allowing a group of provinces or two provinces to join together to-
-to conduct and manage a lottery scheme in that province, or in that and such other province, in accordance with any law enacted by
-legislation-
Mr. Speaker, it is generally recognized that people like games of chance, they like gambling; it is only natural.
We see for example, people rushing to church bingoes, or social club bingoes.
Lotteries do not improve the economic level of a nation, a province, a municipality, a school board or whatever. Somebody is making a profit, but at the expense of all of those who buy tickets or indulge in gambling.
Criminal Code
Mr. Speaker, according to the spirit of this bill, we will eventually have national, provincial or municipal lotteries, and perhaps even school, charity organizations and social club lotteries. All such lotteries will tend to improve the economic situation of some administration in all those fields.
The municipal lottery of Montreal is still going on. Such a lottery was launched in the hope it would solve the financial problems of that city, but it took a few months' to realize that the lottery was inadequate. The municipal authorities had to increase the land tax, public transportation tickets and the cost of all municipal activities.
Provincial and federal lotteries would accomplish the same thing with exactly the same results.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the people of Canada need other things than lotteries. I know people who play bingo. Bingo-playing is a disease, so we play bingo. Not necessarily to support a charitable institution, but in the hope of winning first prize. Sometimes, a week's salary is thus wasted away. As for the salary of the family bead, it is spent in one week, playing bingo in the hope of drawing the big prize. Most of the time, one does not draw the big prize; one is poorer than before.
As far as the principle of lottery is concerned, the Ralliement creditiste cannot recognize it. However, there are exceptions to every rule, and we think that our parishes, for instance, or religious organizations-


An hon. Member:: So there is an exception.


David Réal Caouette: There are exceptions because the present system makes them necessary.
If our parish priests were assured of being able to meet their obligations in their field, if young people never spoke of bingoes, there would no longer be problems'. I hear the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) speak of that exception. We did not create it, it is the system advocated by the Minister of Justice. He is the one who makes it necessary to resort to exceptions.
From the time 1 was a child, I have seen all kinds of bingos and they were all illegal. The parish priest was always afraid of being arrested. No province could authorize the holding of a bingo, because lotteries or bingos, were dealt with in the Criminal Code, and come under federal jurisdiction.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, Why are lotteries resorted to today? I am speaking about those held by

April 21, 1969
Criminal Code
religious organizations, social clubs and churches to raise the funds they are unable to obtain through other means in the present situation. In our crazy set-up, we must tolerate that the parish priest ask his flock to play bingo. But the principle does not change. That does not improve the living conditions of the people as a whole. That does not put money into circulation, but further taxes the people in order to enable a few to make some very short-lived gains. That does not last for any length of time. We allways get the same results and we know what they are. Mr. Speaker, if we must admit that bingos, because of our present system, may temporarily help charitable organizations, we do not believe that the federal government is a charitable organization. We do not believe that the federal government should organize a national lottery in Canada.
We do not belive that the provincial government should establish a provincial one, nor the municipal governments any local ones. But, with regard to charitable organizations, because of the present situation, they 'have no other ways of raising money, except lotteries or bingos.
So we shall support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), but we remain convinced that this is not a solution to the problems which affect the whole nation.
Mr. Speaker, it has been a long time since that lotteries project was first suggested to the government. The government is strongly urged to set up a lottery or to amend the Criminal Code and I say again that this would not settle the matter.
However, in view of the financial system we live in, charitable organizations and social clubs are compelled to resort to bingos. Let us enable them to do so without breaking the law as has been the case since bingos are conducted throughout the country.
Mr. Speaker, we are going to support the amendment of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, but we still maintain that setting up a lottery will not settle anything. This is quite clear in our mind.
This amendment suits us ini the circumstances. It will enable charitable organizations to paddle and dabble in a system which the Minister of Justice wishes to maintain at all costs in Canada.


John Napier Turner: should like to clarify very briefly the purpose

of these two subsections to which the amendment of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) applies.
The new section 179A to be found in clause 13 of the bill provides, as the hon. member suggested, that lotteries shall henceforth be lifted from the Criminal Code and placed within provincial option under a licence of the provincial attorneys-general if their purpose is charitable or religious or if they are run by charitable or religious organizations. That is to be found in paragraph (c) of the first subsection of section 179A. At the same time, a similar local option is given to a provincial attorney general or to a Lieutenant Governor in Council in respect of agricultural fairs or exhibitions or to operators of a concession leased by an agricultural board or an exhibition board to conduct and manage a lottery scheme in the province.
It seemed logical to the government that if the criminal law were to be withdrawn from lotteries managed by private organizations, charitable and religious, or by agricultural fairs, an option should also lie with the provincial government itself or with an agent of a provincial government, and, since this was being done, that the criminal law should be totally withdrawn in its application to the federal government in this area as well.
I wish to deny categorically any suggestion that clause 13, particularly the provisions to which the hon. member's amendment relates, in any way sets up a provincial lottery scheme or a federal lottery scheme. It in no way does this. It merely takes both areas out of the ambit of the criminal law-and I think the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre will agree with the substance of what I am saying.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It
will just make it possible.


John Napier Turner: That is
right. It just makes it possible. It withdraws the application of the criminal law and makes this a question of civil, public policy. It does not establish a new tax because no new lottery scheme is set up. As the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre suggested correctly, it is, if one wishesi to call it so, permissive legislation. It does establish a local option and it now becomes a question of public policy at the federal and provincial levels whether lottery schemes ought to be established. It is not a stamp of approval. Since the hon. gentleman referred to my colleague the Minister of
April 21, 1969

Consumer and Corporate Affairs' (Mr. Bas-ford), may I say it is not even a trading stamp of approval. In no way does it establish any lottery scheme under public auspices in this country.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It
may not be a trading stamp of approval but it is a poor trade.


John Napier Turner: Let us begin with the provinces. Sub-paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of the new section 179A, which is affected by the amendment, reads:
Notwithstanding any of the provisions of this part relating to gaming and betting, it shall be lawful
(a) for the Government of Canada to conduct and manage a lottery scheme in accordance with recommendations made by the Governor in Council and for that purpose for any person in accordance with such regulations to do anything described in any of the paragraphs (a) to (f) of subsection (1) or subsection (4) of section 179.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
What does this mean? It means that the criminal law is withdrawn. It means that the government of a province would have to go before its legislature and get the approval of public opinion in the province. It would have to get the approval of the majority of the members, duly elected, of the provincial legislature. Only then, would a provincial lottery be established. All that this withdrawal of this type of lottery scheme from the criminal, the penal law means is that if a province is willing to face public opinion in the province and decides to introduce an enabling provision in the legislature of the province, then the provincial government takes upon itself before its own legislature the introduction of such legislation. Through its criminal law the federal government says: "That is your business. We are withdrawing from the field. We are giving you the option. You decide in terms of the opinion of your own people in the province whether you want a lottery scheme. If you do, the conditions that you attach to such scheme are a provincial matter".
This being the case, it seemed to the government logical that if the application of the criminal law to the establishment of a lottery is to be withdrawn in the provincial area it ought to be withdrawn in the federal field in the same fashion. So that the establishment of a lottery would become no longer a question of criminal law but of public policy, for which the government of the day would be responsible. May I say to you, Mr. Speaker, and through you to the members of the
Criminal Code
house, that as far as I know the federal government at present has no intention of establishing a lottery scheme. We wanted the bill to be symmetrical.
The establishment of a lottery by a provincial government would be by provincial statute and would be without the criminal code. In the federal area such establishment would be by order in council, which would have to be proclaimed and would be subject to the usual confidence vote in the House of Commons. In any event, there is no present intention to enter that field.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Would the minister permit a question. Would he explain to the house why members of the legislature would have some voice in determining the terms and conditions under which a provincial lottery would be conducted, whereas members of parliament would have no voice whatever in expressing their opinion with regard to the terms and conditions under which a federal lottery would be conducted?


John Napier Turner: Because at the moment no provincial legislature has had the opportunity in any way of pronouncing itself upon the subject. As I say, an order in council would be subject to all the motions of want of confidence that are available to members of this house, and the government of the day would so govern and so limit.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I do not think that answers the question. That would give hon. members the opportunity to vote either confidence or lack of confidence in the government but would not express any opinion on the terms and conditions under which a lottery should be conducted. Surely, that is an important item for those who might want to support a lottery, though I am not one. They would want the terms and conditions set out in the statute under which the lottery was to be operated.


John Napier Turner: I suggest to the hon. member that a want of confidence motion in connection with such an order in council could go to the terms and conditions, as it could to the terms and conditions of any order in council.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding what the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) has to say, I should like to rise to support the amendment proposed by my colleague the hon. member

April 21, 1969
Criminal Code
for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). I deeply regret that this legislation, which in general is civilized and civilizing, would have incorporated within it this particular feature of permitting federal or provincial lotteries!. In my view, this is a blot on what is otherwise an enlightened piece of legislation.
I do not know whether it is too late to appeal to the Minister of Justice to look at this matter again; I suppose it isi I do not know whether it is too late to appeal to the House of Commons here assembled to look at it again, and to reject the present provision in this bill. As I say, I believe in an otherwise enlightened and civilized piece of legislation, this is something that would be deeply regretted if the house saw fit to adopt it. I am not against lotteries because of any puritanical or restrictive points of view. I assume that gambling is a natural instinct, one that cannot be repressed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: How
otherwise would this government have ever got elected?


Francis Andrew Brewin: That is a good point. But when we come to consider the effect of this legislation as far as lotteries are concerned, I think we have to admit that this provision is permissive of a socially injust, regressive and unfortunate system of taxation; that is the net result of it.
I have here a quotation I should like to read to the house contained in a publication called The Christian Century, though I do not know to which century the reference is.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It
has not come yet.


Francis Andrew Brewin: 
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I am in a curious position. I say that if charitable organizations and municipalities are to be exempt from the provisions of the Criminal Code with respect
April 21, 1969

to lotteries, provincial legislatures ought also to be exempted. Frankly. I question the wisdom of having parliament exempt charitable organizations. How can the government say that if provinces operate lotteries they will be breaking the law? Certain narrow exemptions are included in the bill. I do not think it is correct to say that an analogy can be drawn with respect to what is being legislated for the provinces and what is being permitted under the federal authority. When one considers the matter at all, one sees that the Criminal Code is being changed to permit lotteries to be operated by the federal government. In short, parliament is being asked to allow the government to run lotteries.
Such legislation goes far beyond any legislation that would merely amend the Criminal Code. Frankly, we are being asked to authorize the Governor in Council to establish lotteries. That is absurd. One may ask, why is this government asking parliament for authority to operate lotteries.


An hon. Member:: Because Benson's
desperate.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: This is absurd.


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I support the amendment of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). The arguments of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) were so clear, concise, and convincing that it is hardly necessary for me to speak.
This afternoon the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) berrated me for praising the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) for the provisions regarding homosexuality. Probably I went a little too far in praising the minister. I think the amendments concerning homosexuality, abortions, guns, and parole have been brought in because the intention is to bring about an enlightened society-and Lord knows, we will have to wait a long time for a just society.
At present I am speaking about the lottery clause of the bill, and I support the amendment of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. The Minister of Justice may say that the lottery clauses are permissive only; yet I do not think that the introduction of this clause shows that the government has an enlightened view on this matter.
When supporting the idea of lotteries, many Canadians cite as an example the Irish sweepstakes. They say that much money from Canada is flowing out to foreign lotteries and 29180-493
Criminal Code
that if we have our own Canadian lottery the outflow of that money will cease. May I point out to hon. members that the Irish sweepstakes are operated, not by any government authority, but by private authority. In the 36 years this private authority has run the sweepstake it has made in profits $1.2 billion and made available to hospitals and other charitable organizations only $140 million. If that Irish private organization were considered in that country an ordinary corporation subject to corporation taxes it would pay much more than $140 million in taxes on profits of $1.2 billion. In other words, the $140 million paid to charities and hospitals is less than any taxes a comparable corporation would have had to pay.


An hon. Member:: What about the prizes?


John Gilbert: Someone asks, what about the prizes? To that I can only say that the amount of money given to hospitals and other charitable organizations makes me think that the Irish sweepstakes have been hardly worth promoting. I do not think the state ought to make itself responsible for the provision of gambling facilities. It is undignified. The government of Canada should not enter the gambling business. Many studies into lotteries have been conducted in Britain and Canada. The Joint Committee of the House of Commons and the Senate studied in depth the question of lotteries. That was in 1956, I believe. That committee concluded we should not have lotteries here, and made that recommendation. They said that lotteries will bring little tax revenue. Studies have indicated that lotteries in Quebec will net that province little more than $10 million at the highest, an insignificant figure which will do little in Quebec to help hospitals and charitable organizations.
I do not think we ought to support this new legislation, and we ought to support the amendment of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. The minister ought to know the effects of lotteries in New York city and New Hampshire. Responsible authorities there have said1 that lotteries, from the point of view of the state, have not been a financial success and have not helped to meet some of the problems they were intended to meet.
I asked the minister when he appeared before the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs who was promoting this new lottery legislation. He said no one in particular was, 'and therefore the responsibility for introducing this legislation must be laid at the minister's doorstep. Even though the hon.

April 21, 1969
Criminal Code
member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) finds the praise for the minister a little too eloquent, I ask the minister to give second thought to the legislation he is bringing forth and to give close attention and co-operation to the amendment of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
This amendment makes sense. It means the provincial and federal governments will not be promoting the gambling instinct among Canadians. It is not worthy of any government to promote this type of instinct. I need not underline the fact that the operation of any lottery adds little to employment opportunities: The few people required to operate a lottery will not solve any of the employment problems which we face today. That cannot be used as an argument.
I fear the minister may have to bring forth a song with regard to lotteries. We all know the song, "Don't play bingo tonight mother, stay home with daddy and) me". A new national song may have to be brought forth with regard to the operation of lotteries to replace this song. I say, Mr. Speaker, the government should not make itself responsible for gambling facilities. It should not promote the gambling instinct because that is unproductive and unworthy of the government of Canada.


Gerald William Baldwin: May I ask the hon. member a question?


John Gilbert: Certainly.


Gerald William Baldwin: Would the hon. member be prepared to ask unanimous consent of the house to review the remarks he made in his first speech?


John Gilbert: I have full confidence in the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner). He believes in the trustworthy process of democracy. After hearing the eloquent pleas of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin), even discounting the remarks which I make, I am sure the minister will be persuaded like Paul on the road to Damascus, to see the light and bring forth the proper legislation.


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak briefly on this particular amendment. I have not spoken on some of the other amendments because, on second reading, I had an opportunity to state in a general way my position on the most

contentious issues encompassed in the amendments to the Criminal Code. I agree with other hon. members that the particular amendments included in the bill represent an attempt by the minister and members of the house to up-date and bring into conformity the laws of the land as we currently know them. Someone might immediately suggest this is what we are also doing with regard to gambling. A good deal of gambling is carried on in this country under one guise or another. If looked at squarely, much of it is carried on illegally, but government and police officials tend to look the other way when gambling of one kind or another takes place in this country.
Quite frankly, I do not feel the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has gone far enough in this amendment. I did not have the opportunity to hear his remarks. I do not know why he would distinguish between lotteries operated by provincial or federal authorities as opposed to those operated by religious or charitable institutions or agricultural affairs. Gambling is gambling, no matter where it takes place. The issue is surely the same. I believe gambling does little or nothing to encourage people in the correct ethics that motivate and guide the structures of our society and economy. We cannot have a two-sided view, people doing right in one situation and wrong in another.
There have been many experiences with various forms of lotteries. The hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert) mentioned the song, "Don't Play Bingo Tonight Mother". During my time as an active minister and pastor I had to deal with a number of individuals who became victims of an addiction to gambling. It is not the purpose of the minister's amendments to encompass all the various problems of morality in our society.
Our lawmakers have a responsibility to lay down at least general guide lines, but when dealing with the matter of lotteries we have gone far astray. The idea of giving permission to institutions, provinces and governments to conduct lotteries is in direct contradiction to everything the government does in the exercise of its authority. I know of no government department or agency that essentially says, you can expect to receive something for nothing. Therefore, I find it extremely surprising and illiberal, if I may describe it that way. It will do no good.
While the government may find people in certain areas strongly in support of lotteries, they will in truth weaken the moral fibre of
April 21, 1969

the country and create a number of other problems. The minister is young and intelligent, and I find it hard to believe he thinks this is a reform measure.


Mr. Woolliams:: He is younger than you.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: His concept of reform is vastly different from mine. I do not find very much wrong with some of the other amendments in this bill. In fact, in some cases, there is too little being done. As was mentioned earlier, half a loaf of bread is better than none. I cannot understand why one proposal in this omnibus bill sets back the whole trend of reform. I presume there have been political pressures, perhaps within the government caucus. Perhaps there have been pressures we have not heard about in this chamber which have been brought to bear on the department and its officials. The government has not assessed what is proper reform when drafting in this bill.
I will be happy to support this amendment. As I say, it does not go far enough. Religious institutions should be teaching that we should not expect something for nothing. It is shocking to see that they might be permitted, under this bill, to carry on games of chance. There are the very people who would condemn a man who becomes addicted to gambling, whether at the race track, in a poker game or in whatever form it may appear. Now, of course such a man will be encouraged in a large way to believe this is a good thing. He will even be encouraged, in the advertising that will follow, to believe that in some way he is supporting his country because he buys lottery tickets on a regular basis.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
If that is the kind of attitude we are going to generate amongst the people of this country, then God help us all because we have fallen far short of understanding what it is that really makes for an effective society in which people work together, not for one person to gain a great many advantages over another without earning them, but in which each individual makes his own contribution for the mutual benefit of all.
I plead, as other members have done, that the minister give this matter very serious consideration. I would also speak frankly to hon. members on all sides of the house, telling them that in my estimation this is the most illiberal aspect of these amendments to the Criminal Code.
29180-493J
Criminal Code


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to express my support for the amendment moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) for reasons that I do not think have yet been expressed this evening but that I believe are in the minds of members in all parties. I support the amendment because it seems to me that government lotteries whether they be federal, provincial or municipal, are essentially an evasion of the principle of responsible government. They are an attempt at the evasion of the consequences of taxation legislated by parliament, legislatures and municipal councils. They are an attempt to finance government by taking advantage of something that might be considered a weakness in all of us. They are an appeal to an instinct or to a state of mind that has been generated through the brainwashing that has taken place for so many years, the brainwashing which says that there is something intrinsically bad about a tax dollar spent, and something intrinsically good about a dollar spent by or for private endeavour.
Government lotteries in my opinion are an attempt to create a myth or an illusion that there is an easy way to finance the cost of governing ourselves. They are not an easy way, Mr. Speaker. Those of us who are in parliaments, legislatures and municipal councils know that the ways of paying for governing ourselves are never easy. All of us, as legislators, accept the responsibility of assessing the costs of governing ourselves, and from time to time should we assess the wrong ways of taxing ourselves we should be prepared to accept any consequences. Lotteries are an attempt to evade such consequences.
Whatever demand there may be in the country for lotteries, be it a majority demand or a minority demand, be it from some provinces or municipalities, even be it in the minds of some of the members of the government, I submit that demand has arisen mainly as a result of the brainwashing that has take place as a result of the unholy amount of editorials and publications that have continually condemned government spending and government taxation. This myth that there is something bad about a tax dollar spent and something good about a private dollar spent needs to be exploded once and for all.
It seems to me that legislators above all should be doing a positive job in stressing the value of tax dollars, in urging citizens to be concerned about those from whom tax dollars are raised and how they are raised and spent,

April 21, 1969
Criminal Code
as well as the amount of tax dollars. As I have said, lotteries are an attempt to evade the principle of responsible government.
I hope that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) will change his mind and will agree that the amendment moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is valid.
I do not know if this will be a sufficient reason for the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald), but I submit that when a church, a lodge or a fraternal organization has a raffle, a punch board, or whatever other means they may use to raise funds, in almost all cases the overwhelming majority of those funds are raised from their own members. It is a way of taxing themselves to pay for their own organization. It may also be an admission by an organization that it is unable to do its financing through what could be considered more ethical and moral means. But it is still a way of taxing themselves for their own benefit because they cannot go to property, incomes or corporations for their financing. They rely upon voluntary giving, and they look upon raffles as a form of voluntary giving.
I suppose that all hon. members, after spending a week-end in their constituencies, return here with pockets full of raffle tickets. If one were to add them up they would represent a fair number of dollars over a year and very few, if any of us, have ever won a prize. I know I haven't. I am a born loser in these things. I hope that I am making some reasonable rationalization as between state lotteries and raffles held by fraternal, charitable and religious organizations. I might say, Mr. Speaker, that I consistently refuse to buy a raffle ticket from an organization whose aims and purposes I oppose. For example, I would never buy a ticket in a draw sponsored by the Liberal Association in Regina-Lake Centre constituency.


John Napier Turner: But each time you run as a candidate for the N.D.P. that is the greatest gamble you can take of your life.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: When political parties hold raffles in my constituency most of the proceeds come from their own members and supporters. It is a method of taxing themselves. But surely, it is not logical in a democratic society for a government to attempt to evade responsibility and the consequence of taxation by using lotteries as a mythical, easy way to help finance government. Surely, this is an appeal to base instincts and base motives.

Surely, it is an appeal to greed and selfishness of the worst kind. While this may be bad for individuals and small organizations, surely it is doubly bad for governments. I hope that the Minister of Justice will agree that the responsibility for and consequences of tax levying by governments must remain with the field of legislating for taxation rather than in the field of lotteries.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, now before the house is a motion proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) to delete from the omnibus bill, paragraphs (a) and (b) of clause 13 seeking to legalize lottery schemes at the levels of the federal as well as the provincial governments.
Mr. Speaker, clause 13 of the omnibus bill readis in part as follows and I quote paragraph (a) of subsection 1:
(a)	for the Government of Canada to conduct and manage a lottery scheme in accordance with regulations made by the Governor in Council

Moreover it would be legal, and I read paragraph (b):
(b)	for the government of a province, either alone or in conjunction with the government of another province, to conduct and manage a lottery scheme in that province, in accordance with any law enacted by the legislature of that province-
Mr. Speaker, it is then a matter of establishing a national lottery scheme, making it possible for a province to participate. On the other hand, those of us who follow those questions closely, already know about a municipal lottery which, in fact, is nothing but a voluntary tax levied by the City of Montreal.
The City of Sherbrooke has also approved the establishment of a municipal lottery similar to that of Montreal but on a smaller scale.
However, in paragraph (c) of the bill, it is further proposed to legalize any lottery scheme for a charitable or religious organization, under a licence issued by a province, provided the benefits are used for charitable or religious purposes.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, there are consequently many kinds of lotteries. In my opinion, it is important then to distinguish among them, with regard' to the amendment of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that seeks to reject the government proposals.
April 21, 1969

In order to facilitate that study, Mr. Speaker, we must ask ourselves the following question: Why establish a lottery system? What reason prompts us to set up and operate such a system? What is the purpose of those clauses? When considering the matter a little more thoroughly, Mr. Speaker, we realize that the provinces in general are all in favour of setting up a lottery.
Apparently, the federal government is completely in favour of a lottery system. We note that more and more municipalities also wish to establish their own lottery system.
Why do the various levels of government wish to establish a lottery system, as if it were bones for dogs?
I think, Mr. Speaker, that the answer is simple enough. In the first place, the various governments, when establishing a lottery system, want to solve their financial problems. Some representatives of the federal, municipal or federal governments openly state that they want to support their administration and obtain an additional source of income.
Other representatives who are not so honest, at the municipal as well as at the provincial or federal levels, do not say that it is partly to solve their financial problems, but basically, that is the reason which motivates them.
As for the second reason, I think it is because an original solution was found to the financing, planning and construction of hospitals, homes for the aged, jails, etc.
In my opinion the third motive is the following: The provincial, municipal and federal governments wish to seek a source of revenue other than taxes because the population is overtaxed at the federal, provincial and municipal levels.
And the finest example is that of the city of Montreal where Mayor Drapeau had no other choice than to establish a "voluntary tax", according to his own words in order to enable the city of Montreal to honour its obligations. This also was intended to secure another source of revenue, to channel other income from the general public while not leveying a new tax which would have been badly received by the people.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, if we follow up this logical reasoning, each of these levels of government must levy a tax in disguise, a tax which we want to sugareoat to make it more palatable, a tax which we would like to be voluntary, because less and less people are paying up spontaneously.
Mr. Speaker, this brings me to a basic principle which might enlighten us. I think that
Criminal Code
first of all we must clearly establish that this is a lottery scheme and what we just said shows it is an admission (that the monetary system is unable to fulfil its purpose, and to meet community as well as individual requirements.
The wish to establish a lottery or a national, provincial or municipal lottery scheme, is an admission of incapacity, Mr. Speaker, in view of the increasing obligations, the more and more serious financial problems and the greater financial frictions that result from the bigger loans we must make abroad to honour our obligations.
The wish to establish a lottery scheme is, in my humble opinion, an admission of the incapacity of our present monetary system to achieve its purpose, which is to meet the needs of the people.
That is why, at the present time, the governments have no choice-at least, that is what they say-but to establish what many have called a national barbotte, in which any one will flounder, take a chance or bet, knowing that there will be only one big winner, the government, the State, and that always at the expense of the individual. Mr. Speaker, I feel that this is fundamental.
The wish to set up a lottery scheme is an admission of imcompetency considering the increased financial requirements of our provincial, municipal and federal administrations.
Secondly, the amendment to the Criminal Code concerning lotteries is a way of evading the basic problem, that of money.
Mr. Speaker, the governments are confronted more and more with financial problems they are unable to cope with, for they are blind and obtuse, and absolutely refuse to examine seriously our proposals. They well know that the Canadian people are unable to pay more taxes, as they are already overtaxed.
At the present time, the federal government is raising illegal taxes which are not authorized by the Parliament of Canada. He needs money, but he does not want to say so to the people. That is why he is in favour of a lottery system.
While he is putting up a gigantic advertising campaign tio 'incite people to buy a ticket for this or that lottery, in short, to take part in this national barbotte, the state, that is the provincial, the federal or the municipal government, collects this money and reduces the buying power of the Canadian people by that

April 21, 1969
Criminal Code
amount. It is a disguised tax used by governments who do not take their responsibilities.
But what is even more serious is that the problem always remains there, dormant, inherent to our complex situations, to our financial problems, and nobody has enough courage to try to solve them.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
Thirdly, a lottery is, in my humble opinion, merely an essential source of additional income for governments1, whether they admit it or not, because they cannot increase their revenues without levying more taxes.
However, I cannot help, but say that governments are blind because they want to.
Mr. Speaker, if the government was willing to consider our solution, that is to resort to the Bank of Canada to finance the building of hospitals and schools, of roads and bridges, etc. it would then really tackle the problem.
On the other hand, the philosophy that has led to the establishment of this national bank was to serve the Canadians. Moreover, this is provided for in the British North America Act.
However, the governments 'that have succeeded one another since confederation have always been and are more and more in the pay of high finance. In fact, municipal, federal and provincial governments are in the pay of high finance and make annual pilgrimages abroad in order to borrow the amounts necessary to rim the country. However, here in Canada, they want to set up a lottery system.
How stupid and illogical is our present fiscal and monetary system since it prompts us to take measures which are not bad in themselves but which compel us to acknowledge that we are powerless and blind in front of a problem whose solution is becoming more and more imperative.
That is why, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support the motion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, designed to make illegal the establishment of a lottery administered by the Canadian government or by the provinces. And why, Mr. Speaker? Because this would be to negate the real problem, to lie to the country, in short we would be deluding ourselves, we would be deceiving the papulation, we would be dodging our basic responsibilities which are primarily to manage public funds.
Mr. Speaker, if we favour a national lottery with a view to allowing people to co-operate in financing the public domain', we have only to abolish all federal taxes and ask those who

are willing to participate in the federal government barbotte by sending them their contributions. Then those who do not want to pay taxes will be forced to pay them, and those who are crazy enough to pay taxes will be allowed to do so.
Mr. Speaker, to my mind that is illogical. The government wants to levy new taxes, but there is not a single minister who has the courage to do so. When they do, they put out a book of about 500 pages; they hide the tax in the middle page and make us swallow it as if it were a pill.
Mr. Speaker, whether our taxes are called social progress taxes, social recession taxes, or surtaxes, we go around in circles, because the solution has not been found. The Canadian people are allowed to take part in national barbottes which, at best, reduce the purchasing power of the taxpayers at a time when they need more and more of it.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it ten o'clock?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the house under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been made.

Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, I propose tonight to raise the question in a very formal and deliberate way of the award of a Canada Council grant of $5,500 to one Professor Stanley Gray. I raise this matter quite deliberately and with the full knowledge that the government, the minister, pundits and others may seek to misrepresent what I am saying and accuse me of interference with or opposition to the independent operation of the Canada Council. I am prepared to run the risk of that misrepresentation because I feel very sincerely that this matter involves two vital questions which must be considered in this parliament, as they are being considered in this country. My mail would indicate, as I am sure the mail of other hon. members does, that this question is being very seriously and earnestly considered by a great number of people in Canada. First, there is the legitimate question of the priorities of public funds and whether these limited funds should be spent to assist a person who is dedicated to the encouragement of
April 21, 1969

violence, disruption and intolerance in the country.
It is one thing to say that Canada Council awards should be given without regard to the political views of the recipient. That is a principle which I, along with most hon. members, support to the hilt. We do not punish a man for what he thinks. Freedom of speech prevails in this country. I have sat as a student in many classes in institutions of higher learning and observed the utmost freedom exercised in this regard. This is one of the functions of institutions of higher learning. It is my suggestion that it is not what Mr. Gray thinks that is offensive, but rather that what he does is offensive. This is offensive not only to the maintenance of order, which he seeks consistently to disrupt, but it is offensive also to the principle of fair, free and rational discussion.
By his own actions, Stanley Gray is branded as a man intolerant of the opinions of others and the processes of rational discussion and inquiry. By his own actions, he is identified as a man prepared to use his own so-called rights to limit and abuse the legitimate and accepted rights of others. That is why he is in trouble at McGill. If I had time I could quote the head of McGill University, Dr. Rocke Robertson. These matters have been completely aired in the press and I am sure hon. members are familiar with them. So far as I know, no one disputes Mr. Gray's I.Q. or intellectual capacity. But there are serious questions about his willingness to respect the views of others and his determination to disrupt the tolerant and orderly atmosphere necessary to a good university. These questions are serious enough to the authorities of McGill that they would deny tenure to this intelligent man. They are apparently not serious enough to persuade the Canada Council to invest its limited funds elsewhere, where there is greater priority from the standpoint of the development of Canadian nationhood.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)
Let me repeat, so there is no misunderstanding; the qualifications of Stanley Gray are not at issue. There have been Marxists even in this chamber. We recall that in one instance a member of parliament was dismissed from this chamber, not because of his Marxist views but because of his treason toward Canada. Stanley Gray's actions are at issue, and surely this parliament has the right to protest the granting of scarce public funds to subsidize the disruption of public order. As
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion we discovered from our deliberations in the Standing Committee on Films, Broadcasting and the Arts, this action has brought about a crisis in the promotion of artistic development in this country.
The second important aspect of the matter concerns the respect Canadians will have for parliament and for the Canada Council if this award should pass unchallenged. It is a sad state of affairs when we have agencies set up by parliament and by the government which protest because we have the audacity to challenge their actions. This is a trend toward bureaucratic madness that must be stopped if we are to maintain the democratic process in this country.
Canadians are seriously disturbed by the disruptive actions and revolutionary ambitions of persons like Stanley Gray. I have a personal interest in this matter because, over the week end, I was called to an emergency meeting of what used to be a quiet campus, the University of Brandon. The president of that university a very distinguished Canadian citizen well known in this city, Dr. John Robbins, tendered his resignation because of the sort of thing being promoted by Stanley Gray. The story is on the front page of the Journal. I was delighted to see that Dr. Robbins, who is an academician beyond challenge, a supporter of the arts, humanities and social sciences in this country from a long time back, was saying that he could no longer endure this sort of authoritarianism on the campus because it repels him. This is not an ordinary citizen; he is a man distinguished in the arts, humanities and social sciences.
A man like Gray can win attention for his views by disrupting the orderly and regular processes of the country. Does the view of the ordinary Canadian not also deserve attention? To suggest that parliament should remain silent on this question is to suggest that the long-suffering, ordinary Canadian should not even be allowed to use the high court of parliament to register his protest. Members of parliament have a right and a duty to protest when such a man receives a subsidy from our government.
The reputation of the Canadian Council is also at stake. I think this is also one of the reasons why the matter should be dealt with. I see, Mr. Speaker, that you are rising to tell me my time has expired. I want to make just one final statement. It also seems that in protecting this man we are suggesting the award was made to him because of his revolutionary
April 21, 1969

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion and disruptive tendencies. If this is so, I can only describe it as the subsidization of subversion.


Mr. Robert Stanbury (Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has not posed a question, so I am not able to answer one. I take it from his remarks that he was doing one of two things: either he was attempting to bring to the attention of the Canada Council his view, and the view of many Canadians, that the council has made a mistake in reaching this decision, or he was suggesting there should be an amendment to the Canada Council Act to restrict the council as to the criteria it takes into consideration when making such grants as this.
The hon. member recognizes that the council is independent of the government by reason of the act and he seemed to approve of that independence. I should like to remind the hon. member and the house that during the debate on the Canada Council bill, as reported in Hansard of January 18, 1957, the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), speaking of the chairmanship of that body, stated:
I say that the chairman of this body should be one who in no way will he subject to any suggestion that in the slightest degree the council might be subject to outside influences. Following any other course would in my opinion strike a blow at the validity and prestige of this council even before it became operative.
And after he had become Prime Minister, the right hon. gentleman, answering a question as reported in Hansard of November 27, 1957, spoke approvingly of the action of the former Prime Minister, Mr. St. Laurent, in emphasizing, while introducing the resolution preceding the Canada Council Act that the council should be made as free as possible of government interference.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Hear, hear.


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: I think the hon. member accepts that principle. If his purpose tonight has been to draw his concern and the concern of some Canadians over this matter to the attention of the Canada Council, I shall be pleased to see that his concern is expressed to that body, as I agreed it should be. If his purpose is to suggest that there should be an amendment to the Canada Council Act, I will be pleased to discuss with my minister any suggestions he may have to make in that regard.

[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)



CANADA COUNCIL-GRANT TO STANLEY GRAY

Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I feel there is a certain coincidence in the fact that the matter I wanted to discuss this evening is the same one that the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) has just brought up.
Mr. Speaker, that means that the members of this house are very much interested in obtaining information on the grant to Mr. Stanley Gray, a university student.
On April 17 last, I asked the Secretary of State if he could tell us whether Mr. Stanley Gray has applied himself for a Canada Council grant, filled in the requested application form and passed the necessary examinations for obtaining a grant.
Mr. Speaker, considering the attitude of the beneficiary of the grant, and as we know ali about his rather subversive activities, we have a right to ponder a few points. What is the purpose of 'the Canada Council in giving a 5,500 dollar grant to that individual? Apparently it is to enable him to carry on studies in economics at Oxford University; and to achieve a complex study on the electoral and political attitudes in North America and in Western Europe since 1945, with a view to preparing his Ph.D.
In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, a 5,500 dollar grant for such studies is quite unnecessary; indeed, as far as electoral and political attitudes in North America and more particularly in Canada are concerned, there is a study in two volumes on that subject, that Mr. Gray or anyone else, can get for about 5 dollars.
I imagine that similar studies have been made in the United States. Besides in any European country where elections are still free, at least to some extent, it is possible to get some kind of data on that subject.
I cannot see the point of a study on electoral and political attitudes of any given country since such studies are already available.
This makes me wonder why, out of public funds, we should make such considerable grants for a type of work which would be redundant, whereas there are thousands of young Canadian students who cannot get grants from Canada Council to carry on their studies in the field of arts or various other subjects.
In my view, if the purpose of the Canada Council is to promote culture and to allow
April 21, 1969	COMMONS
Canadians to perfect their knowledge, there are enough gifted applicants anxious to make such studies for the benefit of Canada and not by promoting subversion or by trying to destroy law and order, but rather by contributing to the development of our country.
So, I would like to know if the application was filled in appropriately and in the same way as other Canadians who apply for Canada Council grants.


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the hon. member's original question, the Canada Council advises me that Mr. Gray completed an application form on his own initiative and submitted it to the Council according ito the normal procedure. His application was studied by five senior political
DEBATES	7791
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion science professors comprising the preliminary selection committee. His application was then forwarded to the steering committee of the Council's academic panel, then to the 15 men panel itself and finally to the full Council. Mr. Gray's application was one of 3,603 submitted. Of this number, 2,165 received doctoral fellowships.
As the hon. member has mentioned, Mr. Gray indicated he would write his doctoral thesis on "Voting and Political Attitudes in North America and Western Europe since 1945". My only comment would be that this hardly justifies the suggestion that the grant would be a subsidization of subversion. However, I will convey the views of the hon. member to the Canada Council, as I will the views of the previous questioner.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.17 p.m.

Tuesday, April 22, 1969