1969-04-17

[Stage Direction]
Third report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, in English and in French- Mr. Hales.
[Editors Note: The text of the foregoing report appears in today's Votes and Proceedings]


Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 2 of Standing Order 41 I wish to table two copies in French and two in English of the report of the special task force appointed last January with respect to the philatelic products of the Post Office.



NATIONAL CAPITAL


Mr. Gaston Isabelle (Hull) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-188, to amend the British North America Act, 1867 (National Capital of Canada).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Joseph Gaston Isabelle: The purpose of this bill, Mr. Speaker, is to extend the limits of the capital of Canada so as to include therein the city of Hull, and additional areas as defined from time to time by the parliament of Canada.

In other words, this amendment to the constitution would give statutory authority to parliament to include in the national capital all the districts already included in the national capital area.

Through this bill we wish to ensure that equal rights are granted for all and special
privileges for no one, not even the city of Ottawa which has been privileged for so many years as a member of the national capital region.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read a second time? -at the next sitting of the house?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister without Portfolio from Saskatchewan in his capacity as Acting Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the urgent representations made to the Agriculture Committee now in Saskatchewan, to the effect that western farmers face a crisis situation and need immediate assistance until programs for long term adjustment can be of benefit, will the minister say whether the government is now giving consideration to specific interim measures as suggested to the committee out west?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister without Portfolio):: The position of the government's consideration of this matter has been talked about by a number of my colleagues, and I am sure my colleague the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) will be very interested in this connection to receive an early report from the Agriculture Committee on the representations which have been made.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I was trying to give the minister an opportunity to be constructive. I should now like to ask him this: In view of the figures published today by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics showing that Canadian wheat stocks now stand at a record of over

April 17, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry
1,024,000,000 bushels, will the minister tell us whether the house can expect an early statement from him or from someone else-preferably from him-indicating concern and outlining immediate specific measures to be taken? Or does the minister agree with the Prime Minister that the sale of wheat is not really the responsibility of the government?


Otto Emil Lang: The Prime Minister's statement to which the Leader of the Opposition has referred is again quoted in half its form, which is a rather regrettable performance.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Otto Emil Lang: Since I am asked, however, I will say that what is left out is the continuation to the effect that the Wheat Board is there to look after sales. I would be very happy indeed to let the Leader of the Opposition have some copies of recent speeches of mine to indicate to him that-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, those speeches of the hon. gentleman will not be read as they are alibis, not policy. I would ask the hon. gentleman this: What is his view as a member for a Saskatchewan riding


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: I do not blame hon. gentlemen opposite for saying "order". They know the difficulty in which the minister finds himself. I ask him: What is his attitude regarding, first, the question of some assistance such as acreage payments immediately to meet the serious situation in Saskatchewan? None of his speeches deals with that matter.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The right hon. gentleman has asked the minister for his view as a member from Saskatchewan, and the question as asked is not in order.


John George Diefenbaker: Well, then, I will amplify it. Will he tell us, in the speeches he has delivered, what suggestions he has made. He has asked us to read these valuable additions to Liberal lore. What are the suggestions he has made in connection with benefits to the western farmer?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question is not acceptable as asked.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Will the minister make a statement to the house at an early date-not

somewhere outside in the country, but here in this house-as to what is intended?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Otto Emil Lang: Of course, as soon as the consideration of this question is completed we shall certainly make a full statement on the issue to this house.


Mr. Ed Schreyer (Selkirk):: Since the problem referred to in these questions has existed in a grave form for several months, can the minister say whether a decision by the government is imminent?


Otto Emil Lang: Of course it is a certain part of the theory in the west that a great part of this problem has existed for much longer than that, indeed ever since Sir John A. Macdonald's "national policy". But we are fully aware of the seriousness of this issue.



AIR CANADA


[Stage Direction]
Mir. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo- Cowichan-The Islands): Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister regarding the possibility that there will be a strike of the employees of Air Canada by midnight Sunday unless some agreement is reached with the corporation. Since the main dispute seems to have to do with the fact that Air Canada mechanics are paid wages considerably below those paid in the United States-indeed, if their requests are met they would still be below the United States figure-and in view of the fact-
Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: that the President of the Treasury Board has stated-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, I wonder whether the hon. member should not ask his question.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: My question is very short, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the President of the Treasury Board has indicated that where there is comparable productivity wage parity is reasonable, may I ask the Prime Minister whether the government still adheres to the principle laid down by the President of the Treasury Board, and is doing so in its negotiations with the employees of Air Canada.


Righi Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Of course, Mr. Speaker, Air Canada has been
April 17# 1969



conducting its negotiations as a crown corporation should, independently of the government; but we have had a successive series of reports from Air Canada.
Our view is that the company has made a very generous offer-an extremely generous one-of settlement, but that the unions are demanding wage increases which are completely beyond the capacity of the company to pay. Since there does not seem to be an imminent chance of a meeting of the two sides on this, it is possible that there will be a strike. However, the Department of Labour is of course, very actively following the matter, and if there is anything that the government can do short of promising any additional money, the government will do it.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the last offer made by Air Canada will still leave the employees of Air Canada below the parity figure, which seems to be the basis that has been established by the President of the Treasury Board, is the government prepared to reconsider its offer in light of the principle laid down by the government itself?
May I also ask the Prime Minister whether representatives of Air Canada have been instructed, as some of them claim, to adhere to an economical wage guideline set down by the government?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, on the latter point, they have not been so instructed. If they had, I doubt whether their offer would be as generous as it is, in fact. On the first point, it has never been and it is not the policy of this government to accept the principle of parity between wages in Canada and wages in the United States. If it were otherwise, it is obvious that one part of the population and one part of the workers would have to pay for the increases paid to others. It is obvious that the standard of living and the productivity of this country is lower than that of the United States; therefore it is impossible for all workers to be placed in a parity position with workers in the United States. Neither do we think it a good principle to let some workers who are in a stronger bargaining position transfer wealth from the poorer workers to the richer workers.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, in view of the inconvenience that may be caused to a great many people in Canada, may I ask the Prime Minister whether any arrangements are being 29180-483
Inquiries of the Ministry made to have the Canadian Pacific Railway and Canadian National Railways handle perishable commodities in the event that this strike does take place?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, we are not taking the position yet that the strike is inevitable. I can tell the house, however, that a committee of cabinet is embarked on contingency planning of all kinds to make sure that there is the smallest possible disruption of the economy and service to the public, should the strike take place.


Mr. Bell:: Where the hell is the Minister of Labour?



SUGGESTED COMMON NEGOTIATING DATE WITH UNIONS

Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Labour, in view of the absence of the minister? Has the Department of Labour discussed with Air Canada the possibility of arranging one date for having contract negotiations with unions involved, so that those negotiations may take place at one time and thus avert these perpetual strike threats every few months?


Mr. Jim McNulty (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the situation but I will certainly take it into consideration. The Minister of Labour, I believe, will be back shortly.



CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Prime Minister.
In view of the fact that the unemployment rate amounts to 8.4 per cent of the total labor force in Quebec, could the Prime Minister tell the house whether or not his government has any intention of resorting in the near future to a specific means of settling this problem prevailing particularly in the province of Quebec?
Righl Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):
Mr. Speaker, without acknowledging that the statistical data quoted by the hon. member are accurate and without necessarily saying that the only way out would be a change in government in Quebec, I must say that

April 17. 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry the federal government does its utmost to correct the situation.


André-Gilles Fortin: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The statistical data which I quoted originate from the Dominion Bureau of Statistics and while the unemployment rate stands at 8.4 per cent of the total and that-


Mr. Speaker:: Order! Would the hon. member put his question?


André-Gilles Fortin: Very well, Mr. Speaker. Since according to the Dominion Bureau of Statistics the last increase in the cost of living index has been the highest in the last nine months, can the Prime Minister tell us what the government is doing or intends to do to check that rise?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, we are mainly concerned about standing up against the representations of the opposition, including the party of the hon. member, which is constantly asking the government to increase expenditures in all sectors.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question.
Considering that the unemployment rate and the cost of living are rising out of control, could the Prime Minister tell us what does a majority government control?



REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion? In view of the rate of unemployment in Quebec referred to and the fact that the rate of unemployment in the Atlantic provinces is shown as 10.8 per cent in this morning's release from the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, will the minister inform the house when he will be in a position to introduce the industrial incentives bill which we have been promised, and which one hopes would assist him in dealing with the problems of the five eastern provinces of this country?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minisier of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I hope that will be as soon as possible. It will be during the month of May, we hope.


David Lewis: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister inform this house whether he is now negotiating with

provinces with which there is not now an agreement with respect to an over-all plan? Are negotiations taking place with those provinces for the setting up of such a plan? If so, would the minister inform this house of the results of these studies and negotiations?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, the deputy minister of my department last week was with the governments of the maritime provinces. I think he is to return tomorrow and he will make an early report on that matter.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister? Before the Easter recess the right hon. gentleman indicated that the government would be making a statement with regard to Canada's position vis-a-vis various regions of the Arctic. Will he indicate whether this statement will be forthcoming reasonably soon? Will it be in the form of a white paper or a statement on motions, and will there be some opportunity for the house to discuss and consider the government's statement?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I regret, Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position yet to indicate in what form this subject will come before the house. It is a subject we are examining and all ministers involved have been discussing it. When I am in a position to report, I will do so gladly.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Central Nova):: have a question for the Minister of Justice. Could the minister advise if there has been any change in policy of the government as announced by the minister some time ago in this house that no attempt will be made to renew extradition proceedings against Hal Banks, because to do so would place him in double jeopardy.


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: There is no change in policy.


Howard Russell MacEwan: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, arising from attempts being made by Senator Paul Fannin of the United States, of which the minister is probably aware, and arising from remarks attributed to Senator Fannin that he is "disappointed
April 17, 1969

that the Prime Minister and Justice minister have shown so little interest in getting Banks back". Will the minister say-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest with respect to the hon. member that the previous question was not accepted, but I understand the hon. member for Calgary North has a supplementary to the original question.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Thank you for giving me that very careful leave, Sir. I ask the Minister of Justice whether if the administration of the United States are in accord with having Banks extradited, the government would then facilitate the extradition of Mr. Banks.


John Napier Turner: I am hard put, Mr. Speaker, to answer hypothetical questions.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: A further supplementary.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member has a supplementary. I am sure however he will agree with me the minister is correct in suggesting the question was hypothetical.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I will not take up any more time. I realize it embarrasses the government.



INQUIRY AS TO BILINGUALISM BONUS

Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Secretary of State a question.
Bilingual secretaries of members of parliament have been making representations to the government for a while in order to get the 7 per cent bonus they are entitled to under the law and I would like to know when they will receive it.


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: To my knowledge, Mr. Speaker, no such representations were made to my department.


Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Prime Minister.
Could he tell us whether in the wake of the letter he received from the representatives of the bilingual secretaries, the matter has been referred to a branch, a department, the Secretary of State or otherwise, and could he also indicate when the bilingual secretaries can expect a reply in connection with that 7 per cent bonus to which they are entitled?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will have to check whether such a letter was received by my office, Mr. Speaker, and pursue the matter further if need be.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question either to the Secretary of State or to the Prime Minister in connection with that same problem, but more particularly inasmuch as the protective staff of the House of Commons is concerned.
For a long time that staff has been promised the 7 per cent bonus for bilingualism, and I would like to know if that bonus will be granted to them soon.


Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Secretary of State. It arises from the one which has just been asked.
Does the payment of that bonus to the bilingual secretaries come under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of State Department or under that of another department?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, it does not come under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of State Department.


André-Gilles Fortin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Lotbiniere has raised a point of order.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, in my view the question is of primary importance and, this time, I shall direct it to the Prime Minister.
Has any action been taken with regard to the claim made by members of the protective staff for the 7 per cent bonus for bilingualism?


Mr. Speaker:: Even if the question is important, the hon. member cannot, on a point of order, repeat a question that has already been asked.


Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question. Will the Prime Minister, after having inquired about the 7 per cent bonus which was supposed to be granted to bilingual secretaries, be in a position before long to make a statement in the house, so that we may know whether it has been allowed?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, as concerns the secretaries of

April 17, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry house members, I believe that the matter comes under your own jurisdiction rather than that of the government.
In my opinion, it is not up to the government to have inquiries made about members and their secretaries in order to determine whether they perform enough work in French or in English or in both languages to deserve such a bonus. However, I leave the matter to your discretion, Mr. Speaker.


Martial Asselin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
It is not a matter of investigating the members or their secretaries. It is a matter of law enforcement. Is the fact that a bilingual secretary may receive a 7 per cent bonus a matter that comes under the jurisdiction of the Speaker? Is the Prime Minister expecting to meet the Speaker and ask him to make a decision as early as possible-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Hon. Theogene Ricard (Sainl-Hyacinihe):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister regarding the 7 per cent bonus.
Does he intend to recommend to the Speaker to pay this 7 per cent bonus to bilingual employees?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member knows the rules of the house. It does not rest with the Prime Minister to recommend any action whatever to the Speaker of the house.
Inasmuch as the Chair is responsible for all questions regarding salaries of the employees of the house, hon. members can make direct representations to the Speaker.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, this is what I am doing now.


Mr. Speaker:: The rules require that it be done in writing.



AIR CANADA


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister. Would he refer the question of Canadian Pacific Airlines being temporarily empowered to provide additional service across Canada, and perhaps even in local areas, to the special committee of cabinet which he mentioned a moment ago, should an Air Canada strike take place?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that question has already been referred to the committee.



AIRPORTS


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice.
Is he considering the possibility of ordering an investigation of the alleged speculations on the sites suggested for Montreal international airport in Saint-Jean, Saint-Hyacinthe and Drummondville?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe this matter comes under my jurisdiction, but I may suggest that the provincial investigation is also concerned with that problem.



TORONTO MAPLE LEAFS-SALE TO U.S. TELEVISION NETWORK

Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State. In view of today's news reports indicating that negotiations are under way respecting the sale of the Toronto Maple Leafs hockey team to an American broadcasting concern would he look into this situation, which may affect an important element of Canadian culture?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS FINANCIAL DIFFICULTIES IN NEW BRUNSWICK AND NEWFOUNDLAND

['Would the Prime Minister say who is acting as Secretary of State for External Affairs, so that we could communicate with him-because as one looks at these serrated ranks opposite he wonders where all the ministers are.']
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister and ask him what steps the government of Canada is taking to deal with the very serious financial crisis facing the provinces of New Brunswick and Newfoundland, and thereby bail out his friends Premiers Robichaud and Smallwood?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question as asked is not in order.


James Aloysius McGrath: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, my question is an urgent one. It is prompted by the budget that was brought down yesterday in the Newfoundland-
April 17, 1969


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the question is important and urgent the hon. member should ask it in such a way that it will be acceptable to the Chair.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, with youir indulgence I will rephrase my question-


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: And don't be such a smart Aleck.


James Aloysius McGrath: What's that?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I say "and don't be such a smart Aleck".


James Aloysius McGrath: Obviously I hit a very sensitive area. What steps is the government taking to deal with the very serious financial crisis now developing in the provinces of New Brunswick and Newfoundland which is placing a very heavy burden on the peoples of those two provinces?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: As I indicated on a couple of occasions a few weeks ago, Mr. Speaker, officials of all provinces are constantly meeting in Ottawa these days. They met yesterday and today, and I believe they are meeting tomorrow.


An hon. Member:: Every room will be full of task forces.



John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I look at the Treasury Benches and I do not know to whom to direct this question, but since the Prime Minister has referred to hon. members as smart Alecks I will direct it to him in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Will extra staff be made available to the passport body, which is very far behind in its work? People all across Canada are finding it difficult to understand the interminable waits that have to be made, even with clear-cut applications?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will refer the representation of the right hon. member to the minister, Mr. Speaker.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege affecting all hon. members of the house. This is the kind of nonsense this house is being subjected to by the government, in adopting the system of selective
Inquiries of the Ministry appearances of ministers in the house. We are entitled to have answers to questions without waiting around until ministers gallivanting all over the world decide to return.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


John George Diefenbaker: The Secretary of State is perambulating all the time, but I see that he is here today.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: Surely the Prime Minister should not try to wipe aside a reasonable question by a facetious observation such as that.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am very impressed by the lecture of the right hon, member. The minister to whom he is referring is at present in Japan with three other ministers on very important business involving trade, external affairs and other aspects of Canadian policy. They had to go to Japan, and certainly it would be improper for the right hon. member to assert that the minister's absence, or the absence of any of them, would prevent the passport office from issuing passports.
I do submit that that office may be subjected to a little extra work issuing passports to members of ithe opposition travelling abroad, but I am sure that the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs will not prevent the passport office from hearing the representation of the right hon. member and from trying to expedite this matter as much as it can.


John George Diefenbaker: Would the Prime Minister say who is acting as Secretary of State for External Affairs, so that we could communicate with him-because as one looks at these serrated ranks opposite he wonders where all the ministers are.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, the Postmaster General is looking very relaxed today and in view of that I would like to ask him a question concerning the large number of casual employees in the Post Office, something we have discussed on a number of previous occasions. Can the minister report to the house any recent information he has regarding this subject as it affects the postal service across Canada?

April 17, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry


Eric William Kierans: I can give more exact information, Mr. Speaker. I said that the number of casuals is diminishing at a considerable rate. Between February and March we actually reduced the number of hours of casuals by
110,000,	and that is almost 22 per cent or 23 per cent, and the dollar figure reduction was from $916,000 to $710,000. We are quite concerned about the problem.
At this moment in Ottawa the unions are meeting with my officers to discuss the whole problem of casuals right across the country. We have issued instructions to the regional offices that the unions and the administration should get together to discuss the problem.


Mark Willson Rose: Can the minister tell the house what proportion of these casuals have been taken on as permanent employees of the postal service?


Eric William Kierans: I could give the exact figures, but the hon. member will recall we had 2,000 surplus positions to fill and I would not judge that very many of the casuals have been hired permanently. We had to find jobs for the 2,084 who were rendered surplus because of the five day week.



SERVICE AVAILABLE ON SATURDAYS

Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Postmaster General. Some tune ago the minister said that he would give consideration to keeping open on Saturdays all wickets in the lobbies of post offices, rather than just a few sections. Has he anything further to say in this regard?


Eric William Kierans: We have not reached a decision on that. It does present a problem. We are giving half service, which is not satisfactory at all. We are considering it.



IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS IN STAMP DESIGN REPORT

Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Postmaster General. It is in reference to the crisp and critical report of the Cunningham task force on stamp design which although tabled today was submitted to the minister in February. Can he advise whether any action is contemplated to implement any of the recommendations for improving what was found to be a pretty unsatisfactory situation.


Eric William Kierans: Mr. Speaker, I have already expressed my opinion by saying we found the report to be unduly severe and critical. I did not feel, however, that that was any reason for not tabling it in the house. After all, the people have paid for it. A great many of the stamps we have issued have been of a high order, but there is tremendous room for improvement. With regard to the recommendations, we have them in hand and do intend to implement a great many of them.



NATIONAL PARKS


Mr. Alexandre Cyr (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Could the minister tell the house whether the Quebec government has agreed to a 99-year lease for land to be used for the development of a national park in the Gaspe peninsula?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I have not yet received a final answer from the Quebec government; however, yesterday, I was in the Gaspe, and several citizens of the Forillon peninsula offered to give us their lands for the development of a national park.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Can the minister say whether the national parks policy has been altered in any way to permit the establishment of new national parks on the basis of long term leases of the land, rather than on the basis of an outright grant of the land to the Crown in perpetuity?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that the hon. member is not familiar with French law. The "bail emphyteotique" or long lease is a legal term to be found in the Quebec Civil Code, though not in English law, and which allows us to act legally.
April 17, 1969



INDIAN AFFAIRS


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct this question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. You will recall that many weeks ago I raised a question about the regulations then in force in respect of Akaitcho Hall at Yellowknife. The minister said he was asking the commissioner to make an inquiry. I should like to ask when the minister will be able to give this chamber the details of the report which he has received as a result of the commissioner's inquiry, and would he also be good enough to table a copy of the new regulations which have recently been adopted in place of the outdated and severe ones which were objected to earlier.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, at my request, the Commissioner of the Northwest Territories personally conducted an investigation following which students were invited to elect a new council and to draft, in co-operation with the institution, new regulations which were unanimously approved.
I have not yet received a copy of the regulations but when I do I shall be pleased to advise the house accordingly.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. With regional disparity and a just society in mind will the Prime Minister consider a low income housing experiment in an area where annual incomes of $4,900 and $5,600 are higher than the average?
Surely the gesture the Prime Minister just made is the type of gesture which Ted Williams was expelled from baseball for.


An hon. Member:: You got struck out.
Inquiries of the Ministry IMMIGRATION



EUROPEAN FARM WORKERS-EMPLOYMENT OF STUDENTS

Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Will the minister reverse the decision of his department which had the effect of cutting in half the number of European farm workers available to work in Canada under the International Agricultural Exchange Association and which thereby would have the effect of depriving more than 100 western farmers of experienced and capable help during the busy spring and summer season?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry I did not hear the first part of my hon. friend's question. If he is referring to the exchange of students for farm work in Canada, I should like to tell him we have reduced to some extent the number of students from other countries that would be coming to Canada this year, because of our desire to employ as many Canadian students as possible. There is still a rough balance between the number of students we take and the number of Canadian students who find employment abroad.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Would the minister review the decision in light of the fact that students, particularly high school students, in our own country are at school during the seeding and harvesting seasons and therefore are not available.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has made a representation to the minister.


Mr. Cliff Downey (Baffle River):: Mr. Speaker, is the Department of Manpower and Immigration ready and able to provide the same service to farmers, so that Canadian boys can work on our farms for the same seasons, May 1 to November 1, at the same wage?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Well, Mr. Speaker, I think there is a capacity within the Canadian agricultural industry to absorb, certainly in the summer months, large numbers of Canadian students who are interested in doing this kind of work at reasonably good wages and under reasonably good conditions.

April 17. 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry fTranslation]



CANADA COUNCIL


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abilibi):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State.
I should like to ask him whether Mr. Stanley Gray has applied himself for a Canada Council grant, and if he has filled in the requested application form and passed the necessary examinations for obtaining a grant.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member is asking a question already asked yesterday, but if he thinks his question is urgent, he could discuss it at the time of adjournment.


Gérard Laprise: At ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.



TORONTO MAPLE LEAFS-SALE TO U.S. TELEVISION NETWORK

Mr. David MacDonald (Egmonl):: Mr. Speaker, my question should normally be directed either to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs or the Minister of National Health and Welfare, both of whom I assume were to be present today but are not. Therefore I shall direct this question to the Prime Minister. It is a follow-up to a question asked earlier by the hon. member for Surrey, which I think is an important question inasmuch as hockey is at least-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. When the hon. member asked the question, the question period had expired about a minute previously.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put the question to the Prime Minister and ask him whether he and his colleagues are investigating the matter and considering appropriate action with regard to the possible buying up of one of our national hockey teams by a United States television network.


Mr. Stanley Haidass (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the hon. member may I say that the entire question of sports is being studied now by a task force of the amateur and professional sports committee of the Department of National Health and Welfare, as well as by the Economic Council of Canada.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, to the parliamentary
IMr. MacEachen.l
secretary in the absence of the minister. I ask whether the house can be assured that appropriate action will be taken before final negotiations are completed with regard to this sale.


Stanley Haidasz: I will take this question as notice, Mr. Speaker, and bring it to the minister's attention as soon as he returns.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, April 16, consideration of Bill C-150, to amend the Criminal Code, the Parole Act, the Penitentiary Act, the Prisons and Reformatories Act, and to make certain consequential amendments to the Combines Investigation Act, the Customs Tariff and the National Defence Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, and the motion of Mr. Wool-liams (for Mr. Valade):
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, he amended by deleting therefrom clause 7.
Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, like many other members in this chamber I have difficulty with the law that we are now considering and with the amendment that is proposed. I think the present law is, and has been for some time, largely unenforced. I do not know whether it has been unenforceable. The remedy that is proposed, however, seems to go too far in one direction for average Canadians, who after all are entitled to regard the parliamentary attitude toward the Criminal Code as a reflection of what morality should be in Canada. I hope I will be able to flight my way out of my dilemma and make at least a suggestion or two in a brief contribution to this debate.
We have here an attempt to separate the law from personal morality or, as has been stated by the architect of the so-called just society, the state has no place in the nation's bedrooms. That statement has a rather mottolike note ring to it. But I suggest to Your Honour and hon. members that the state does have a place in the nation's bedrooms. It certainly is there in the presence of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro),
April 17, 1969

with family allowances when unions come to fruition. It is there in the person of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hellyer) when he is in a position to issue pleasing housing statistics showing us just how many bedrooms exist. It is there in the presence of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) because when two people come together certain financial benefits flow to the person who makes out the income tax return. Then, sir, if the union is productive, even more financial benefits flow to that union.
So this bedroom is getting to be pretty crowded. The Minister of National Health and Welfare, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Transport are all there. Even the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) is there, because on occasion people straggle into the wrong bedrooms and certain parties have to put their cases before judges of divorce and matrimonial courts appointed by the Minister of Justice. So the Minister of Justice is also in that bedroom.
Then what about the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. MacEachen)? From time to time ministers of immigration of this country have been indiscreet enough to venture into weighing the merits of persons born in Canada as opposed to the merits of persons born abroad. When the minister of immigration does this on rare occasions and gets his knuckles rapped, as he should, he is surely then in the nation's bedrooms and counting those going in and the number of bodies coming out. Therefore I suggest that the statement of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is a very great oversimplification of what is the actual situation in Canada. I have listed some half dozen ministers who have an interest in the bedrooms of the nation. This number is somewhat more than the number of ministers present this afternoon, for example, under the roster system.
I shall come to the problem in a moment, but first I would like to comment on certain statements made in the debate yesterday by the hon. member for York East (Mr. Otto). He gave an historical sketch of the sources of morality and their development over the ages. First he has to be put aright on an historical fact. It was Julian the Apostate, not Hadrian, who attempted to turn back the clock and revert to the worship of various pagan gods. The hon. member also seems to have forgotten the first half of the great Judaeo-Chris-tian tradition that is part of our heritage. He has forgotten the moral teachings in the Old Testament before the Christian era, where
Criminal Code
certainly much was said about the goings-on at Sodom and Gomorrah, when the finger was shaken at Noah for incest with his daughters. You can name almost any part of the Old Testament and find that these things have been taught us in our formative years as examples of immoral behaviour. What the hon. member seems-


Mr. Otto:: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. gentleman permit a question?


Robert Jardine McCleave: I would be delighted to accept a question.


Steven Otto: Is the hon. gentleman suggesting that the tribes of Israel composed a civilization at that time?


Robert Jardine McCleave: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker; I did not catch the question.


Steven Otto: Is the hon. gentleman suggesting that the tribes of Israel could be interpreted as composing a civilization at that time?


Robert Jardine McCleave: I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that if any other group as small in numbers has been as successful in directing the course of civilization I have not heard of it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Jardine McCleave: For a people living in a very small area and often beset by civilizations ten or even a hundred times their size, I think they showed remarkable perseverance, a persistence to live and an ability to impart to us a great deal of our heritage. I hope that answers the hon. member's question.
Having listened to the hon. member, I gather that he has derived his notions of morality from the later days of the classical civilization of Rome and Greece. I point out to him that certainly in what might be called their Spartan period or their early years of formation, their standards of morality were very high indeed and were directed to the preservation of family and state rather than giving full and unfettered rein to the permissiveness of individual behaviour. This is the point I am making.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
What is the whole criminal law about if it is not to enact something that imposes sanctions against what we regard as behaviour that is anti-social or against the interests of our society? There is no point in trying to argue that every individual is free to use his own moral yardstick. He is not free to go

April 17, 1969
Criminal Code
forth intoxicated and wander about in a public place without drawing opprobrium or some penal sanction upon himself. He is not free to go forth stealing, even if stealing may be a matter of life or death to him and he takes something literally to preserve life. He is not free, to handle any potentially dangerous thing. Any hot-rodder can skip along, with youth on his side and the ability of young people to react more quickly to dangerous situations than older drivers do, but he is not free to drive as he likes down the centre of any main street in Canada. The law imposes sanctions against that sort of behaviour. In short, what I am saying is that personal norms are not our guidelines in drafting the criminal law, and the criminal law deals with a multiplicity of human behaviour.
The dilemma in which I find myself is that I do not like the existing law in this field. We were all shocked by a recent case in which a person who had practised homosexuality was kept in prison for an indefinite period under another section in the code which was upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada. I do not think that the facts in that case justified that sort of reprisal against an individual of aberrant habits, otherwise, God knows who really should be in an institution for the rest of their lives. I
I reject the present law in this field, but I think that the minister, in taking the course he has followed, is shrugging off the whole problem rather than attempting to cope with it in some manner. I have to agree that remedies are not particularly rampant in this field, but we do have the Kinsey studies and, particularly in the last 15 years, there has been a growth in the science of ethology. Studies in this field have so far been confined to aberrant behaviour in wild geese and animals, but they are nonetheless an indication of how human behaviour might develop under certain environmental conditions. Within a few years these studies will probably give us a much better understanding of how we can cope with sexual perversions and other aberrant behaviour of human beings.
Admittedly my remedy comes late in the day because we have to vote on a particular measure and not discuss a course of action that otherwise could be followed, but I suggest that we have dealt with this subject in a purely legal manner. It has been studied well in the committee-it was a very fine committee-but it was studied as a legal rather than a health problem. Perhaps it would have been better to take up the subject in the health
IMr. McCleave.l
committee where ethologists and other people could have come forward and made suggestions.
May I say as my final point that I have tried to argue as best I could that we cannot allow morality to become the prerogative of every individual. It is not individual morality that we are dealing with but group morality. I have here an article which appeared in the Western Catholic Reporter of February 9, 1969. This is not a periodical to which I, as a Presbyterian, subscribe but this copy was given to me by my friend, the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams). It contains one sentence which makes the argument as well as I could in 15 or 20 minutes. It reads as follows:
-the government has an obligation to promote the acknowledged norms of decency.
Unfortunately this is not what is happening in regard to the particular section of the code with which we are dealing.
I do not believe that problems of homosexuality and other aberrant sexual behaviour should be dealt with entirely as a penal matter; I think other courses will be open to be followed as our society becomes more knowledgeable on this subject. However, I would not like to see the field thrown wide open so that any person may think he has a right to do his thing. I do not think, for example, that we help society by making certain sexual aberrations permissible under the code. This might allow any pervert who molests children to think that if his neighbour down tihe street can be a homosexual and mingle with his kind he himself has the right to follow his own inclination to savage young children. Yet I think that unless we are very careful with what we do with the Criminal Code people will shrug-this seems to be the society of the shrug-at any suggestion that there is good law in the nation.
This is what bothers me most of all. People have to have a sense of what is right and proper in society and they must feel that there is an expression of this in the law. In the normal course of things, if someone goes astray society steps in and says that person is to be punished for going beyond what is regarded as good and proper behaviour. I believe that the intention behind the proposed amendments is good and I do not quarrel with it. But if we pass these amendments we will make our criminal law meaningless to a large segment of the country because people will automatically cast their minds back to the days of decadence of
April 17, 1969

earlier civilizations and they will think that the same thing will happen here. They will feel that we as parliamentarians have not produced the kind of law which will hold this civilization together.
In balancing my regret with regard to both the proposed law and the amendments put forward by the two hon. members I have to come down in favour of the amendments and I propose to vote accordingly.


André-Gilles Fortin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that I am a new member and that I do not know the rules thoroughly as yet, I would like to know whether the minister will put an end to the debate if he speaks now?


Mr. Speaker:: I have always been impressed by the hon. member's knowledge of the rules. However, I remind him that the minister does not close the debate by taking the floor now.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, you have confirmed my understanding that under the new rules, despite the fact that the Speaker is in the chair, the minister does not close the debate when he rises to speak. However, we are limited to one intervention on each particular amendment. Despite this rule, I think it might be appropriate at this time if I were to address myself briefly to the third amendment appearing on the order paper under notices of motions pursuant to Standing Order 75 (5). If I may be allowed the same latitude as was given to the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams), I should like to digress somewhat to answer his point as found in his amendment, No. 7.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
Briefly, it is the rationale of clause 7 that law and morals are two separate disciplines involving two separate philosophical propositions or concepts. It is the feeling of the government that certain private aspects of human life and relationships between individual human beings, despite the fact that in a pluralistic society they might be considered to be by some, in their own private judgment, as immoral, and by others to be less immoral or possibly, amoral, had better, in those areas of private behaviour, of personal conduct not involving public order, be left to private judgment and not be subject to the criminal or penal code. It is within this
Criminal Code
philosophy, or collective judgment of the government, that we have introduced clause 7 to provide that the sections of the Criminal Code dealing with gross indecency should not apply as between a husband and his wife or between any two persons each of whom is 21 years of age or more, when both consent to the act.


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):: In private.


John Napier Turner: In private. In other words, when acts are committed in private between two consenting adults, those acts, however indecent or repugnant or immoral, should remain a matter for their own private consciences and not be a matter bringing into play the Criminal Code of Canada. The conduct contemplated in this clause, homosexual acts between consenting adults in private, is repugnant to most of us. It is repugnant to the great majority of the people of Canada. I resent very much the argument of some members of the opposition that this legalizes homosexuality.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Of course it does.


John Napier Turner: It surely does nothing of the kind. The clause does not endorse such acts. It does not promote such acts. It does not advocate such acts. It does not popularize such acts. It does not even legalize this kind of conduct.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: It legalizes it. Of course it does.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Would the minister permit a question for the sake of elucidation? I understood him to say the attitude of the government was to leave these acts entirely within the realm of private judgment. If this is so, how can such conduct possibly be illegal?


John Napier Turner: With the greatest respect, I think that is a bit of sophistry. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) was not present throughout the debate yesterday, although I presume he read Hansard. The argument put forward by some members of the opposition was that the effect of this clause was to legalize or condone a standard of conduct which to most of us is physically and morally repugnant. It does nothing of the kind. It merely lifts the stigma of the criminal law from a certain type of conduct which we consider to be private conduct which ought not to be within the purview of the criminal law. That is the purpose of the clause.

April 17, 1969
Criminal Code


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: When
something ceases to be illegal it is then legal.


John Napier Turner: It may well be, and I tend to think so myself, that homosexual acts are a cause for medical attention or psychiatric attention. But when carried out in private, and when they do not affect the morals of a minor or corrupt a minor, they should remain outside the criminal law. The criminal law will not cure them. The causes of this kind of conduct are far more subtle.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: What
about the ages 17 and 18? This is when doctors are necessary, and it is criminal then.


Mr. Valade:: May I be allowed to ask a question, Mr. Speaker?


John Napier Turner: I should be glad to entertain the hon. member's question when I am finished. I am sure he will be able to retain it in his very sophisticated mind until the end of what I have to say.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: You are just a pair of consenting adults.


John Napier Turner: The hon. member was a member of the committee and he knows we threshed this subject out fairly thoroughly. I recognize his interest in this subject from the point of view of the criminal law and I shall be glad to entertain his question a little later.
It is our view that it is not the purpose of the criminal law to probe into the private lives of individuals where the public order is not involved. Here I come to another argument, and in this I believe a good many members of the house will support me. A penal law is not a good law unless it is an enforceable law. A law which is not enforceable is not a good law. And it is our judgment that a law against the kind of conduct contemplated in clause 7, acts between consenting adults in private, is unenforceable, indeed, that attempting to police this type of conduct by probing into the private lives of people would bring the whole system of law into contempt and disrepute and thereby contribute to making the law less credible. I believe that public order would be better served by the amendment to the code which we propose.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Would you pry into the 20 year-olds?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I know the members of the Rallie-ment Creditiste and I am sure they were sincere when they quoted from the Old and the New Testament. May I tell them, however, that I have here, to back my opinion a text which says that a law which cannot be enforced is not a good law.
Therefore, may I quote, for their guidance, an excerpt from the Supplement to the Sum-ma Theologica, by Saint Thomas Aquinas. I quote from the answer to the first objection, question 67, article III.
He that is empowered to prohibit (i.e. to make laws) does not sin if he does not expect his prohibition to be a source of redress or improvement, but, on the contrary, deems that this prohibition will give birth to more evil or disorder.
Therefore, I believe that even on the ground of theology, very serious and reliable authorities have backed up the opinion that if you want a law to be complied with it should be officially promulgated.

I wish to comment briefly on certain remarks made during the debate. I shall not trace them to individual members because I would prefer to deal with the question objectively.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
The suggestion was made that taking away the sting of the criminal law from this type of conduct between consenting adults in private would menace the health of society, that it would have a damaging effect on family life. This concerns me very deeply. I want to cite for the consideration of the house some of the conclusions, reached after a good deal of study, by the Wolfenden commission in the United Kingdom which, as the house will recall, was composed of 12 men and three women under the chairmanship of Sir John Wolfenden and reported on similar matters to the House of Commons at Westminster.
After a very thorough investigation and inquiry the commission rejected each of these arguments. The committee found there was-
-no evidence to support the view that homosexual activity is a cause of the demoralization and decay of civilizations, and that therefore unless we wish to see our nation degenerate and decay such conduct must be stopped by every possible means.
I am using the committee's own words. The report goes on, and I quote again:
-we cannot feel it right to frame the laws which should govern this country in the present age by
April 17, 1969

reference to hypothetical explanations of the history of other peoples in ages distant in time and different in circumstances from our own.
With respect to the second contention that this type of conduct has damaging effects on family life, that homosexual behaviour between males has a damaging effect on family life, the committee found-and I quote:
-this may well be true, and deplored "this damage to what we regard as the basic unit of society".
I deplore it too. However, the committee went on to say:
We have no reasons shown to us which would lead us to believe that homosexual behaviour between males inflicts any greater damage on family life than adultery, fornication or lesbian behaviour. These practices are all reprehensible from the point of view of harm to the family, but it is difficult to see why on this ground male homosexual behaviour alone among them should be a criminal offence.
Here we get down to the relationship between law and morals again. We do not condone adultery, yet it is not a crime. We do not condone fornication, yet it is not a crime. This type of private diversion from what we would consider moral behaviour has remained outside the purview of the criminal law, and I do not believe that the imposition of the criminal law against this type of behaviour would cure it. Neither do I believe that the imposition of the criminal law against the type of behaviour contemplated in this clause, however reprehensible it may be to most people in this house and in this country, would cure the illness or conduct about which we are talking.
I want to deal briefly with the arguments of the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams). The hon. member used to support his contention an opinion written by Dr. Alan Mewett, a very respected professor from the University of Toronto school of law, whose testimony we had the advantage of hearing before the committee, thanks to the intervention of the hon. member. The hon. member suggested that under the proposed amendment bestiality could be lawful. I should just like to read the clause to Your Honour.
Sections 147 and 149 do not apply to any act committed in private between
(a)	a husband and his wife, or
(b)	any two persons- I
I agree with the hon. member that there is no certainty in the law. I agree with the hon. member that he does not have to take my opinion of the law. As a matter of fact, I am appointed to this post not to interpret the law
Criminal Code
but to try to administer justice, and I take my views from as wide a selection of legal authority as I can,, particularly from the law officers of the Crown.
I suggest to the hon. member that the opinion he advances, supported as he is by Professor Mewett, is not widely shared. As the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Stewart) suggested to us yesterday, it really does not take a lawyer to distinguish between the word "person" and the concept of bestiality. Therefore I would say to him, with all the respect that I have for him as a result of our friendship over the years, that new section 149A must be construed as referring to those acts that are mentioned in sections 147 to 149 other than bestiality. To construe clause 7 in any other way would be to reduce the ordinary use of language to an absurdity.
May I thank you for your indulgence, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate that hon. members opposite have suggested in rather strong terms that law and morality ought, where possible, to be synonymous, public law and strictly private morality. However, I cannot accept that. I suppose that in a perfect society where one would have unanimous opinion as to what is morality and what are standards of good behaviour this might be so. But the problem of trying to render synonymous law and morality is that we then come down to the question: Whose morality? Whose standards of behaviour? Whose sense of morality? Who is to determine the standard? Who is to attribute blame? Who is to say what is moral and what is immoral? Who is to decide when moral responsibility exists in terms of freedom of will, and when it has to be diluted in human terms because of environmental or physical causes?
The nub of the matter is: Who is to decide what moral behaviour or conduct is to be reflected in the code? That is the point. In a pluralistic society there may be different standards, differing attitudes, and the law cannot reflect them all. Public order, in this situation of a pluralistic society, cannot substitute for private conduct.
We believe that morality is a matter for private conscience. Criminal law should reflect the public order only. Despite the fact that most of us in our personal convictions have a complete repugnance to the conduct from which we are lifting the taint of criminal law, this does not to my mind interfere with the validity of the principles that we are trying to submit to the house.

April 17, 1969
Criminal Code


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: May I just ask a question for clarification, Mr. Speaker. As I said yesterday-and I hope I was fair in my argument

the law is subject to interpretation. In this particular argument I have to ask the minister's opinion of the law as he sees it. May I just review section 147 of the code; I read it yesterday and it deals "-it1- '-'uggery and bestiality. Section 147 reads-Every one who commits buggery or bestiality is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment-
Is it possible for two persons over 21 years of age, engaging in this sort of pantomine in private, to be found guilty of bestiality- under proper circumstances, of course, as the minister can appreciate, being a lawyer?
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)


John Napier Turner: As I said, Mr. Speaker, we are unable to agree with the hon. member's contention that the factual situation as he described it would be applicable here.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: My argument is simple. Does the minister mean that if two people are together and they have an animal with them and one of them commits an act of bestiality with that animal, one of them would not be guilty of contravening the Criminal Code? Would not both be found guilty of bestiality?


John Napier Turner: What you are worried about-I speak through you, Mr. Speaker-does not amount to anything.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Napier Turner: I submit the hon. member is concerned about a situation which really tortures the wording of this amendment. The amendment would in no way exempt the type of conduct he describes.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, on previous occasions I have asked the minister certain questions. Would he be good enough to reply to them now? The minister stated that homosexuality ought not to be considered from the legal aspect but from the psychological or medical aspect. On what argument does he base that contention? What specialized or expert opinions does he draw on when he says that homosexuality ought to be considered a medical or psychological problem?


John Napier Turner: That was accessory to my main argument. We believe that this type of conduct cannot be cured by using the criminal law and that it is either a

question for private morality or for physical treatment. It must be cured either by emotional or psychiatric treatment and is beyond the purview of the criminal law. That was my argument.


Mr. Nowlan:: Mr. Speaker, will the minister permit a question? I agree with him as to the way this type of conduct ought to be cured. He suggested that the arguments of my leader constituted sophistry and I submit that the minister's arguments are forms of sophistry. Frankly, I cannot follow them. I do not understand his argument when he says that the introduction of clause 7 will not make homosexuality legal. As I understand the law it is that without clause 7 acts of homosexuality would be illegal. By inference, therefore, it is fair to say that the minister is legalizing this conduct. This area of the bill, frankly, is the only one which really bothers me. When the minister tries to suggest that questions raised by hon. members with regard to this clause constitute sophistry, I say that the minister is not being quite fair. Surely with clause 7 homosexual acts in Canada will be legal.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, what the clause purports to do is to render non-criminal homosexual acts between consenting adults in private. That is a far cry from the positive term "legalized". In other words, it is a far cry from saying such conduct is legalized.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I had no intention of participating in this debate but I must confess that the minister's latest comments have made me more confused than I was before.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Perhaps he did not mean to suggest that the change he is proposing constitutes approval of this conduct. But when he stands up in the house and says that the effect of the change will not be to legalize such conduct, I am afraid I cannot follow him. If this clause means anything surely it means that it will make legal what was formerly illegal. The minister's latest statements have only served to confuse me and I cannot accept his contention. I can understand him when he says that the criminal law possibly was ineffective in this area. But when he says that this sort of conduct involves purely a matter of private judgment, then I find that difficult to accept. Surely we recognize that
April 17, 19G9

the interests of society are involved with respect to what goes on in private and that the criminal law must regulate such conduct.


John Napier Turner: I take it the hon. member was asking a question and I shall try to reply to it.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It was a statement.


John Napier Turner: The effect in law of clause 7 is to provide a defence to sections 147 and 149 with respect to those conditions described in the clause. That is the legal effect of it.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: But section 147 deals with bestiality.


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended participating in the debate on the amendment to clause 7 of the bill. But as I listened to the minister this afternoon and to the explanations he gave hon. members with respect to the bill I, too, found myself becoming increasingly confused. Frankly, I do not know why the Minister of Justice has followed the course he has in introducing this bill. As the English speaking Weir apparent to the Prime Minister's throne which may become vacant more quickly than we realized, he has not done himself justice by promoting this type of measure.


An hon. Member:: You are confused.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Yes. As one hon. member has said, I am confused. Considering what is rumoured throughout the country I feel that my statement has some validity. As I listened to the minister I could not help wondering just who was promoting this bill across Canada. Where did the pressure come from that caused the Minister of Justice to initiate this form of change or this type of measure? I fail to understand it. I cannot conceive of the reasons that prompted this measure to be brought before the house.


An hon. Member:: Whom are we trying to protect?


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: I wonder, whom are we trying to protect? When the effect of clause 7, as I understand it, is to make legal acts of homosexuality and buggery between two consenting adults or bestiality involving animals when such acts are carried out in private, how can the minister justify his thinking on this matter? When we pass clause 7 these acts, although they are committed in private, become legal. Would the minister say, for
Criminal Code
example, that if two adults smoke marijuana in private their actions would be legal?
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
In view of the controversy in the house on this point I think the Minister's views would be of interest to the house as well as to Canadians generally. I cannot conceive of the measure now before us being passed. I wish to register my strong protest against legalizing homosexuality and I want to indicate my intention to vote against any act that will legalize it in Canada.
Would the minister answer my question with regard to the use of marijuana? Does he believe that the smoking of marijuana by two consenting adults in private should be considered legal?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order please. May I remind hon. members that the Chair will accept such questions provided they are addressed to the minister while he has the floor.
These questions must not be allowed to develop into speeches since some hon. members will probably want later on to take part in the debate on this amendment.


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: did not have the privilege, Mr. Speaker, of serving on the justice committee which dealt in depth with this very difficult problem, but I have followed the debate in the house at the various stages, particularly at this stage.
Having listened to the comments of the various members who have spoken and to the statement of the minister a minute ago, it seems to me that legal chicanery has been the main concern involved in discussing a matter which I feel is a very profound and disturbing moral issue. I am not a lawyer and I do not intend to get involved in the legal niceties of the problem, but I would like to present some of the moral concerns that bother me as I contemplate having to make a decision on this matter.
As I have listened to the discussion it has become more and more evident why this bill should not have been considered in omnibus form, but it should have been dealt with in separate parts. I understand this was the desire of the Minister of Justice in order that we could deal with the merits of other parts of the bill which are worth while and

April 17, 1969
Criminal Code
should be promoted without having to commit ourselves to a moral act of profound significance. I am in agreement with hon. members who are disturbed with the minister's attempt to deal with the moral aspect. The minister quoted the Wolfenden report. It is not the law of the Medes and Persians in regard to the social impact that a measure of this kind might have. As a matter of fact we now hear of very serious repercussions in the United Kingdom as to the effects that similar amendments made there a few years ago are having on the basic social institution of the family.
The minister referred to previous experience with regard to the moral impact as being history from a bygone era having no significance today as we consider this matter. I concluded from this that the minister has his head in the sand. I believe it was Charles Beard who reached three main conclusions as a result of a lifetime spent on historic research. They were, first, that "the mills of the Gods grind slowly, but they grind exceedingly fine"; second, "when it is dark you can see the stars". Morally, it is very dark right now in many parts of the world. Possibly there will be a light at the end of the tunnel before very long. The third and most significant is, "He whom the Gods would destroy, they first make mad."
I cannot understand why a government charged with the responsibility of leading this house and the nation is bringing in this change at this time when there has been no great public pressure or public clamor. The issue is seriously fraught with moral implications. We are bringing the morals and values of skid row into the salons and drawing rooms of the nation. I used to be a social worker. Certainly these things go on in skid row areas, but now we are bringing them right into the open and discussing them in the high court of public opinion, parliament. This will not resolve anything in terms of the problem itself.
The minister admits there is no positive approach in the legislation to this problem. If it is to be dealt with in a positive way, we must change the emphasis from punitive treatment to therapeutic treatment. There is nothing in any government program that comes to grips with the problem. We are reversing completely values and traditions which have been the foundation stone upon which our western Christian civilization has been established. This is being done without any public pressure. The initiative has come from the government.

There was a time when it was possible to say that all politicians were against sin and for motherhood. Here we have a reversal of this fundamental principle. Obviously this legislation means that we are formally recognizing this problem and are downgrading the role of motherhood in this nation. Our values are completely reversed, which indicates the degree to which moral decay has saturated our society. Today we hear many people in responsible positions referring to the civilization and culture of North America, the United Kingdom and in fact the whole western world as a sick society.
I am amazed that members on the government back benches have not participated in this debate because we are now reaching the crux. We have to make a decision within the next day or so. I hope some government supporters will weigh this change from the standpoint of not only its legal implications but also its moral implications.
The Prime Minister himself has given support to this legislation. As a matter of fact, he initiated the legislation when he was Minister of Justice. There is a prestige surrounding this high office which is far above the qualities of any particular incumbent. As several spokesmen have already indicated, it is the Prime Minister who in response to the serious criticisms with respect to the moral implications replied with that frivolous phrase, the state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation. Of course that is hardly worthy of the dignity and responsibilities of a man who is charged with the responsibility of leading this nation. Murder your wife in the bedroom and see how quickly the state would move in. Pile garbage in your bedroom and see how quickly the state would move in.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Some of the backbenchers on the government side of the house are shouting. I wish they would get up and make speeches instead of shouting. I am speaking to the amendment.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, there is a debate going on and there are interruptions from the other side of the house.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. The hon. member for Brandon-Souris has the floor.
April 17, 1969


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: As I was saying, murder your wife in the bedroom and you will see how fast the state will deal with that problem. But if you become involved in spiritual and psychological degradation of this kind you are actually committing an act that involves spiritual and even sociological death because, as I hope to demonstrate in the short time at my disposal, this is not an act that involves only the individual concerned. It has widespread sociological implications.
I know that a lot of acts are committed today in the name of what is called the new morality. The new morality is merely the old permissiveness that has dragged down men and nations from the dawn of creation as the result of a complete reversal of values, with evil becoming good and good becoming evil. We are concerned here with one of the most intimate and sensitive relationships between man and woman in human society. If we remove love from sex I suggest that we will destroy human personality. I suggest, with great respect, that we are seeing human beings behave at an animalistic level as interpreted in the best seller of a short while ago entitled "The Naked Ape". I would suggest to the minister that notwithstanding the arguments he made this afternoon, sex without love is immoral. People are to be loved and not used, and that applies to both sexes.
What we are embracing is the Playboy philosophy. I remember seeing one of those smart, cynical cartoons depicting a man and woman in a fond embrace and the man saying, "Why think of love at a time like this"? This is just about the level to which the government is taking us in this strange, unnecessary and, from a public standpoint, uncalled for amendment to the Criminal Code.
Playboy says it is all right if it does not hurt anybody. The Judaeo-Christian ethic says nothing is right unless it helps somebody. Actually what we are embracing is the Mohammedan philosophy of hedonism. That is where the phrase, "The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation", originated. The Arab attitude or the Moslem attitude is that as long as public decency is not debauched everything is all right. That is precisely the philosophy the minister was supporting this afternoon. In other words, what I don't see I should not and need not worry about.
With respect, Mr. Speaker, we are dealing with a gross perversion of a very high and
Criminal Code
noble function which is involved in perpetuating the species. It is socially vicious, Wolfenden notwithstanding-and who is Wolfenden, after all, but one man? I do not know if he embraces the Playboy philosophy. He might, but I think we could get many more important philosophies to support the other viewpoint. It strikes at the heart of our basic social institution, the family, and it is for this reason that so many authorities say today that what we are dealing with is a sick society. It is abnormal social behavior, because homosexuals are predators. Anybody who has been engaged in social work knows that the homosexual is a predator in respect of matters of sex. Homosexuals prey on juveniles. It is something that spreads like a plague, for there is no more destructive drive than the sexual impulse running wild.
The lawyers on this side of the house have already dealt with the strange anomaly that if you are over 21 you are legal and correct and if you are under 21 there is nothing said at all. In fact there is supreme silence on the matter. However, I was recently reminded by the Manitoba Director of Communicable Diseases, Dr. Snell, that one of the reasons for venereal disease running out of control today is the very difficult problem of controlling this sort of thing amongst homosexuals. It is an illness, I agree. It is a psychological and deep-seated spiritual disease which requires therapeutic rather than punitive treatment, but there is nothing in the amendment to the code that deals with the therapeutic aspect of the problem. It is an action that is incomprehensible, that is going to make it impossible for a good many members on this side of the house, indeed I hope on both sides of the house, to vote for other amendments to the Criminal Code which are worthy of support.
To bring these remarks to a conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I wish to quote a few words from Dante. I think the minister will recognize them as having some pertinence so far as our modern 20th century sex-saturated civilization is concerned. In another time of darkness in human affairs in the moral sphere Dante said: "The hottest places in Hell are reserved for those who in a period of moral crisis maintained their neutrality". I hope many hon. members will take a stand on this issue even though it means they will have to vote against the bill as a whole because of the failure of the government to deal with it reasonably and rationally in separate parts rather than in omnibus form.

April 17, 1969
Criminal Code


Mr. C. Terrence Murphy (Sauli Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I am entering this debate for one reason only, because 1 have become a little bit sick and tired of sitting on this side of the house and listening to some of the speeches from the other side.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
The last speaker, the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale), started out by saying that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) was being very unreasonable in asking that this bill be treated as an entity and not be broken down into three or four parts. Yet at this very moment he has been taking part in a debate on an amendment to the bill which deals with one of the very parts which would have been dealt with had the bill been broken up. Every member of this house, by voting on this amendment, will be in a position to indicate where he stands on the question of homosexuality and the other acts covered by clause 7 of the bill. As later amendments are dealt with every hon. member will have an opportunity to stand up and be counted in connection with the problems involved in the different parts of the bill pertaining to abortion, lotteries and other matters. As I see it there is no hardship for a backbencher in the bill being dealt with in this way. Every member will have an opportunity to let his voice be heard with reference to all these amendments in the way in which he wants to be heard.
The hon. member for Brandon-Souris made a great fuss about the phrase, "the state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation". I should like to say that that phrase was uttered long before June 25, 1968, by the minister of justice of that day. This bill was publicized long before June 25, 1968, and the people of Canada knew about that phrase; they knew about the man who used it. They knew it was part of his program. The people of Canada returned a majority of that man's party to this house. That is the reason we are sitting over here and you are sitting over there. The hon. member also-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. The hon. member for Brandon-Souris on a point of order.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. That statement was first uttered by Omar Khayyam. It was borrowed by the Prime Minister.


Charles Terrence Murphy: I will accept the correction by my hon. friend.


David Lewis: Omar Khayyam was not elected.


Charles Terrence Murphy: In any event the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the then minister of justice, used the phrase. He might be guilty of plagiarism, but he did use that phrase at the time he introduced what I believe was Bill C-195 in the last parliament.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Omar Khayyam was a playboy too.


Charles Terrence Murphy: The word "playboy" has come up a number of times. The hon. member mentioned that sex without love is immoral. This is Playboy philosophy. I agree with him. I could not agree more that sex without love is immoral, but that does not make it illegal. It does not make it a crime for which the person should be punished. Sex with love under the present section 149 is illegal as the law now stands.
If the proposed amendment passes, that law will continue to stand and sex with love between a husband and wife and between a fiancee and her husband-to-be committed in private would continue to be a crime. I believe what this government is trying to do is remove the stigma of criminality from these legal acts between a husband and wife and consenting adults when they are committed in private and affect no one else. One hon. member brought up the question of attempted suicide. It was brought up yesterday by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), I believe. I must say that I agree wholeheartedly with what the hon. member said yesterday about attempted suicide. I do not think that should be a crime either. In due course, hopefully during the life of this government, I think steps will be taken to recognize that fact and have that offence eliminated from the criminal law as well.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Charles Terrence Murphy: I believe, however, that before making his speech yesterday the hon. member for Edmonton West probably went through the Criminal Code with a fine-tooth comb. The only offence he could find in the Criminal Code pertaining to a private act committed in a private place, apart from the acts which are now being eliminated from the code, was attempted suicide. There is no crime under our criminal law other than attempted suicide in respect of which the person accused of the crime does not in some way infringe upon the rights of society, upon the rights of the state or upon the
April 17, 1969

rights of another individual. Attempted suicide is the only one in the Criminal Code.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Narcotics.


Charles Terrence Murphy: That question was raised as well. A comparison was drawn with marijuana. I do not know why the hon. member did not go on and mention heroin and some of the other narcotics. The history of their use would indicate that a person addicted to narcotics is more likely to go out and harm or damage other people.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: What
about a homosexual?


Charles Terrence Murphy: A homosexual doing so under this act is guilty of a crime and the amendment does not change that. Anyone who molests youngsters or commits an act in public will continue to be a criminal despite the present amendment. All this amendment would do-and with all due respect to the minister I do not go along with him-would be to legalize I think an act between consenting adults in private and between husband and wife in private. There is no reason that such an act should have been illegal in the first instance.


Martial Asselin: What about adults 19 years of age?


Charles Terrence Murphy: I did not hear that.


Martial Asselin: What about adults 18 or 19 years of age?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. The hon. member is not sitting in his place.


Charles Terrence Murphy: Much has been made of the fact that an age limit has been prescribed here. Surely all members know age limits must be prescribed in much of this type of legislation.


Some hon. Members:: Why?


Charles Terrence Murphy: I will put it this way. If a man has sexual intercourse with a girl who consents there is no crime if she is 16 years of age. If she is 15 years, 11 months and 29 days it is a crime.


David Lewis: Twenty-seven days if the month happens to be February.
Criminal Code


Charles Terrence Murphy: I accept that. A person who takes a drink one day short of his 21st birthday is guilty of a crime and on his 21st birthday that same act is not a crime. A person who is one day away from being 21 years of age cannot vote under our present law.


Some hon. Members:: Why?


Charles Terrence Murphy: The next day he is eligible to vote. The history of our law shows there are a whole series of exemptions. Age limits have been imposed for common-sense reasons. If you want to bring the age 'limit down to 20 why stop there? Why not make it 16 or 10? There are obvious reasons. I do not think it takes a great deal of thought to figure them out.
I have risen on this occasion to indicate that I am not afraid to stand up, as has been indicated by some members, and to indicate that other backbenchers on this side of the house are not afraid to stand up and enter this debate. I shall oppose the amendment.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I also am opposed to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Sainte-Marie (Mr. Valade), because new section 149A, which is the substance of clause 7, removes from the criminal law sexual acts' done in private between two consenting adults over the age of 21. This is the substance of the new provision. This does not mean that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner), the government or any person within parliament is giving moral condonation to the act of homosexuality. The minister, like many others, feels that this act is repugnant or distasteful. This is the very reason why I commend the Minister of Justice for his wisdom and courage in bringing forward this amendment to the Criminal Code. I would like to welcome some of the members of the Progressive Conservative party in the 20th century, but I find they have hang-ups arising from their puritanical narrowness and find it difficult to come into this century.
It is obvious that the problem of homosexuality is a very difficult one. The hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale), because of what he said, made me realize that he had not read the Wolfenden report or the speech of the Archbishop of Canterbury in the House of Lords. He has not read too much on the subject, yet he adopts a moralistic tone which makes it rather difficult to accept his arguments.

April 17, 1969
Criminal Code


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege, If the hon. gentleman will go the library he will find that I have read most extensively, and I do not think he should be the adjudicator of my reading capacity.


David Lewis: What you said in your speech did not show it.


John Gilbert: 
Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: No. Let us have some positive legislation.


John Gilbert: Do we treat people suffering from tuberculosis, cancer or leprosy as such? I agree with the hon. member for Brandon-Souris that psychiatric help is a form of treatment. But if he would read the Wolfenden report he would see that it indicates that many of these people are not anxious to have psychiatric help and that very little success has been obtained through psychotherapy in this field. This indicates that we are still groping in the dark with regard to the medical treatment of this major problem.
The question arises: How many persons are homosexual? I think it is fair to quote Dr. Kinsey, who made an extensive study of this problem in the United States. He said that 4 per cent of adult, white males are exclusively homosexual throughout their lives after becoming adolescent. He also said that 10 per cent of all adult, white males are more or less homosexual for at least three years between the ages of 16 and 65, and that 37 per cent of the total male population have had some overt homosexual experience, to the point of orgasm, between adolescence and old age. It was pointed out that in Sweden 1 per cent are exclusively homosexual and 4 per cent have homosexual and heterosexual impulses. When I heard the hon. member for Brandon-Souris say that we are bringing in the conduct of skid row, it indicated his lack of knowledge on this subject.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I said "the values".


John Gilbert: I will accept the interjection of the hon. member. These figures obtained from Sweden and the report of Dr. Kinsey indicate the extent of the problem. With regard to the question of the moral issue-and we have heard a great deal about the moral problem- concerning homosexuality, I note that the opposition is mostly on the basis of repugnance and revulsion rather than on a valid basis for bringing into the criminal law private sexual behaviour of this kind.
We have heard a great deal about how civilization is becoming demoralized and decayed. It is said homosexuality has had a great impact on the health of our society. The minister quoted some of the Wolfenden report to reject that argument. The Wolfenden committee found there was no evidence to substantiate the contention that homosexuality is bringing about the demoralization and decadence of our society. It is fair to say that you cannot refer to other civilizations which are
April 17, 1969

both different in time and in circumstances. With regard to the allegation that homosexuality damages family life, no doubt there have been cases where homosexual conduct has broken up marriages and the family unit; but again, as the Minister of Justice said, so have adultery, fornication and lesbian behaviour.
I think that people who express themselves in a high moral tone should exercise compassion, understanding and patience with regard to the problem and should not want to treat these people as criminals. But it seems there is involved in this question an almost Old Testament-time vengeance that pervades their minds and souls and they invoke the wrath of the old gods.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: We want therapy.


John Gilbert: The next problem is that of age. The age set forth in the bill is 21. The question of age is very difficult. At what age is a man to be regarded as an adult? Is it 16, 18, 21, 25 or possibly 30? Let us look at it. There are certain requirements with regard to determining the age at which a person becomes an adult. First, it is necessary to protect young and immature persons. Is a person at the age of 16 or 18 really able to stand on his own feet, or do we have to wait until he becomes 21? It is a rather difficult question. It differs from person to person, as the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) said- But we all assume that at the age of 16 a person is still quite young and immature.
The second standard is the age at which a man's sexual development can be said to be formed. Medical evidence, according to the Wolfenden report, indicated that there may be a stabilization period at the age of 16 in the sexual development of a person.
The third standard is the definition of an adult as a person responsible for his or her own actions. As we know, we consider a person 21 years of age or over legally able to enter into a binding contract.
The fourth aspect is the consequences which follow the fixing of a particular age. The Minister of Justice, in his wisdom, fixed the age of 21 quite arbitrarily, probably because if is the legal age of contractual responsibility, and this may be the best possible age at which the maturity of a person is established. One would hesitate to say that a person is mature at (the age of 16 or 18. There is greater possibility of that at the age of 21. These are the factors that have been taken
Criminal Code
into account by the minister, and I think he is to be commended for choosing the age of 21.
I could not help but smile when I heard some members of the Progressive Conservative party trying to make a distinction between a person 21 years of age and a person 20 years, 11 months and 30 days of age. A person who is 21 years of age or over commits no offence, while a person under that age commits an offence. The same rule would apply if the age was fixed at 16 or 18. If we fixed the age at 18, a person 18 or over would not be guilty of an offence but a person 17 years, 11 months and 30 days of age would be guilty of an offience. The minister arbitrarily chose the age of 21, I assume, on the basis that it is the age of contractual responsibility and also a likely age at which young people reach a stage of mature judgment.
The function of the law is to safeguard those persons who need protection by reason of their youth or some mental defect. Homosexuals who tamper with young persons under 21 years of age should be considered criminals. It is also a function of the law to preserve public order and decency, and therefore homosexual behaviour which takes place in public should continue to be dealt with by the criminal law. Let us make no mistake about the fact that new section 149A deals with consenting adults over the age of 21 who commit sexual acts in private.
I had hoped that the Minister of Justice would bring forward other procedural amendments concerning prosecution by way of indictment or by summary conviction and would have toned down some of the provisions so that they would be more in keeping with the practice and experience of the courts of the day. But I am satisfied that when we proceed to a total revision of the Criminal Code the minister will take these other factors, as suggested in my amendment which was ruled out of order, into consideration and that at that time he will make the necessary changes.
I hope that we as mature Canadians will be able to develop the idea expressed by the hon. member for Brandon-Souris that these people should have all the psychiatric help which can be provided. We must remember that many of them are very reluctant and sometimes not willing to accept psychotherapy as a treatment for this problem.
May I say in conclusion that I am opposed to the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Sainte-Marie (Mr. Valade). I am

April 17, 1969
Criminal Code
very proud that we have a Minister of Justice who is attempting to update the criminal law of this country in light of the experience we have had in the past and that he is doing so in a spirit of reformation and rehabilitation with regard to offenders against that law. I think we are most fortunate to have such a Minister of Justice at this time.


Mr. F. J. Bigg (Pembina):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a few words on this bill because of my previous experience as a law enforcement officer. I should like to compliment the minister on bringing forward the bill. However, I am a little disappointed in that I believe he should not have brought in any suggestion of partisanship. I compliment the minister on the bill which is entirely concerned with the reform of the Criminal Code. I am sure that every hon. member has just as much interest in it, if not the detailed knowledge and experience in the drafting of laws of the minister and the fine group of civil servants behind him.
I am not an academic. My work involved field experience, and we tried to use common sense. So I am a little worried about the effect on the general public which this amendment may have. We all appear to agree that homosexuality is repugnant to the average Canadian, regardless of what Kinsey says about it or what is done in Sweden or in England or in the House of Lords or in the Arabian army or anywhere else. As far as I can see, the same need does not arise in Canada with its fresh air and wide open spaces. We do not live in crowded quarters, nor do we live in the desert far away from our families. We do not even have problems of great wealth which necessitate love-ins, nor are we jaded. We live a normal, outdoor life. This is why the Canadian people, up to now at least, have found no need to loosen their moral standards.
I do not go into the political pow-wows of the nation any more than I intend the police to go into the bedrooms of the nation to find some deep and dark reasons for dragging forth this subject. As a policeman I never had any need to prosecute consenting adults because of their ideas of what is proper in the sexual act. Therefore this is an academic problem, and I do not think I am making an evil suggestion when I say that probably it has only been included in the Criminal Code as a measure to try to tidy up a loose end along with some other important and necessary changes to the Criminal Code.

This subject makes good copy because it has a bad smell and people want to get into the act. I can assure the house that at this stage of our development in Canada it is not a proper function of the police, nor do I hope it will be in the future. It is not important statistically. I do not think that this amendment or any other change to this part of the Criminal Code will do anything to improve the situation. I am sorry that this sort of thing goes on; I am sorry that human nature has its soft and weak side. However, I hope that if this change is made in the law we will let it go by as quietly as possible.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
I hope we shall not in any way, either by calling names in the house or anywhere else, allow anybody in Canada to think that anyone in this chamber condones homosexuality in any of its aspects. I do not know whether we can help the 4 per cent or the 10 per cent or the 30 per cent who have come into contact with it at some point during their adolescence, or by misadventure.
It is up to us, generally speaking, to decide what shall be a criminal act and what shall not. Strictly speaking it is up to us to decide what is a private act and what is a public act, because there is a penumbra, an area where private acts could become dangerous to the public. It is up to us to decide. I do not think we can dispose of the problem merely by saying that what goes on in the bedroom is nobody's business outside the bedroom. Of course it could be.
As a former law enforcement officer I can state that there are certain things which go on which have to be investigated. I do not suggest we should put listening devices in every room. But there are cases in which people with well known aberrations and evil tendencies are allowed a first bite, like a mad dog. In the city of Winnipeg at one time a small boy was murdered in a coal yard. The police had every reason to believe they were looking for a sexual offender. The city police in Winnipeg told me at that time-I was involved in the search-that they had information about 300 known persons who might have been involved. In spite of the fact that it is not desirable to have people prying into the private lives of others, police forces must be alert to such problems. The police must not be so naive as to believe that everybody is nice, that everybody is lovable, and that nobody would perform indecent acts or commit assaults on those who are young or defenceless or beyond reach of help. The
April 17, 1969

Marquis of Queensbury rules do not apply to these people for many reasons. They may be criminals or mental defectives, or they may be victims of bad habits.
This may sound like the expression of an over-active moral conscience. Well, the police, the Minister of Justice and all those in between must have a moral conscience. They have to talk about a moral conscience and they have to enforce a moral conscience even though they themselves, at times, may be guilty of lapses. As a traffic policeman at one time I had to enforce the traffic laws with regard to speeding-60 miles an hour in certain areas, 30 miles an hour in others, and so on. Traffic policemen, including myself, have been given tickets for these offences from time to time. If they are good policemen they pay them like the rest of the public and try to do better next time.
I think it is our duty when we speak in the House of Commons to suggest that there are moral standards in the nation, and that at times these standards should find their expression in our laws. As far as I know, those standards are the only basis for the criminal law.
I do not altogether understand those who say that because a law is unenforceable it should not be on the statute books. We run into this difficulty in connection with substances like marijuana. Marijuana can be grown virtually everywhere in the temperate zone. It can easily be procured. It is almost impossible to prevent its use. However, so far we have continued to make the use of marijuana illegal because, on the basis of our knowledge, it is not helpful to people to use it. We have concluded that on the balance of probabilities the little trip or lift that users get from it is outweighed by the effect on health, morals and behaviour. That is why some of us here would like to bring about control of this tendency which apparently is creeping into our society.
I do not like the idea of unenforceable laws, but if this is the only way of putting up a stop sign, the only way of telling our young people we do not agree with this kind of thing, then I believe a case can be made for such laws. They are a way of telling young people, when we, hopefully, have developed into grown up males and are beyond temptation ourselves, that certain things are against the law, even though the law may not always be enforced because in some cases it cannot be owing to the difficulty of obtaining evidence. In any case, our opinion about it has been expressed in the law.
Criminal Code
As far as I know, in the 20 years I was a policeman no one was victimized as the result of the section of the code we are now discussing. I could be wrong; there may have been one or two occasions when somebody was sent to jail, but not to my knowledge. I would regret it if somebody spent a long time in jail as a consequence of this section. If so, the practice should be reviewed. But I really think that if we still believe this type of behaviour to be wrong some stop sign should be put up to say: we do not agree with this kind of behaviour. In any case we should make it abundantly clear that if this section is removed from the code we do not condone this type of behaviour in any way.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, if you will excuse my saying so at this time-I intend to speak only once on this Criminal Code legislation -I feel very much the same way with regard to the proposals concerning abortion. When it comes to saving a woman's life I think the doctor has the right to decide. Any doctor worthy of his practice has the right to decide as between the life of a child and that of the mother. But the practice could get out of hand, and if we ever reach the point at which the sanctity of human life is bandied about we shall have many reasons to regret it. Once a child is on its way it has the right to live, just as you and I.
The cogent argument I use for my own purposes is this: I look at my grandchildren and at my own daughters and ask myself, "Which one of these would I have the right to destroy?" Only one person I know would be competent to make such a decision, the doctor who is responsible for the care of my family. His knowledge is greater than mine and as far as I know he is the only man who should have the right to decide. That is the way I intend to vote. I shall give that right to the man I trust. After all, when I send a member of my family to the operating room I trust in the judgment of the doctor. That is why I engage him and entrust my wife or child to his care.
These standards have been maintained for a long time. Like others in this house, I inherited mine from my parents who in turn received them from their parents. I suppose, as hon. members have suggested, that they go back ultimately to the Judaeo-Christian ethic. That ethic may be out of date today in the minds of a lot of people as far as I am concerned it is still the finest standard by which we ought to set our conduct. I believe it is the pattern for much of our whole Criminal Code

April 17, 1969
Criminal Code
in the first place. "Thou shalt not kill" is the basis of our murder law. "Thou shalt not steal" is the basis of our property law. To say that modern society in its enlightenment can throw all this overboard is a grave error. What would be our reference point if we did not rely on the judgment of the past?
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
I was not a member of the committee and I wish I had been, but if the committee has not produced any historical evidence that immorality corrupts the human spirit, which in turn corrupts the human mind and in turn destroys the human body itself, then I think the committee should sit again. From the short experience I have had I have been convinced that this is the chain of events; that when a man dies in his spirit it is not long before he dies in his body. If the state has the right to protect his body, it has an equal right to protect his spirit, to help maintain those standards of good behaviour and good morals, so far as we can agree on what those morals are, in order to lead him and succeeding generations into the future.


Mr. J. A. Mongrain (Trois-Rivieres):: Mr. Speaker, I shall be brief.
I have listened to several speeches and I have read several statements which have been made on the subject. In my opinion, some things need to be put straight because there has been an obvious misrepresentation of facts and, in some cases, there is evidence of self-righteousness. It appears that some people want to make it seem that those who intend as I do to support this bill, approve of immoral practices, which is not in keeping with the facts. Therefore, explanations are required.
For example, an hon. member made this statement earlier in the debate and I quote:
I have the approval of 100 per cent of the people, at least in my riding and in the rest of the province of Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, the one who said that is the hon. member for the constituency next to mine. I go through his constituency from time to time and I must say that he does not have the support of 100 per cent of those people. I would not dare give the percentage of those who do support him, but I say it is surely smaller.
It has often been said also that the object of this bill is to legalize homosexuality. That is not true. Homosexuality in itself is still unlawful. It is but one aspect of the question.

It was so well explained by others having more authority than I do in this matter that I would not like to stress that point further.
But Mr. Speaker, I should like to narrow the question down to its essentials and also put some order in the minds of those who claim to have all virtues and who delight in making all kinds of innuendoes at those who support the bill, in imputing them all kinds of bad motives and in casting doubts about their respect for morality.
I should like, with your permission, to quote an article that was given to me by my colleague from Madawaska. It deserves, I believe, to be quoted and to be recorded in Hansard, for it shows in a very eloquent way the attitude to be adopted by a legislator whenever he legislates upon matters dealing with moral questions. I am quoting here from L'Eglise de Quebec, a publication formerly entitled La Semaine Religieuse de Quebec and published by the Quebec diocese. The article was written by a group of theologians from Laval University. Therefore, it should meet with the requirements of conscience, at least in the case of those who, like me, are Catholic.
I quote:
The bill known as omnibus bill, has been introduced in the Canadian parliament. Discussions on certain clauses of the bill, especially those concerning homosexuality and abortion, have sometimes given rise to uncompromising stands that cannot be ascribed to Catholic ethics.
I repeat those words, Mr. Speaker:
-have sometimes given rise to uncompromising stands that cannot be ascribed to Catholic ethics.
And further on:
Therefore, it seems advisable to recall a few elementary facts about the appreciation of a civil law.
1)	Civil law is directed towards the political commonweal.
We are not theologians. Those last words are mine, but I now go on with the quotation:
Of course, it must draw its inspiration from the basic imperatives of natural law; but it cannot adapt itself to it to the extent of governing everything that comes under it or of forbidding everything that is against it. In other words, the political commonweal does not demand that every moral fault be considered as an offence under the law.
Those are theologians speaking, Mr. Speaker, and they further state:
Thus, for instance, the State does not consider adultery as a crime, although it is still an injustice besides being a form of lust.
2)	It is also necessary to stress that this so-called permissive law may be preferable to a restrictive
April 17, 1969

law if, thanks to it, it is possible to better promote the commonweal while respecting the various religious beliefs, opinions, mentalities and customs. It is self-evident that one could not consider such a law as a moral approval of the behaviours it allows. One can certainly not accuse Saint Augustine of having promoted prostitution. He stated however that in his days, the political rulers would have been unwise to forbid it.
3)	The legislator must take into account the pedagogical aspect of the law.
However, that educational role must be adjusted to some extent to the moral level of the people. In this respect, the habits and rules of behaviour of a given civilization must be taken into account. Besides, this principle applies to every form of education.
When legislating for a population of 21 million, divided into ten provinces where various religious persuasions are found, opinions vary of necessity on matters the government itself does not have to settle.
I now resume the quotation:
4)	The citizens do not all agree in matters of moral standards. The legislator is not legislating for a specific group but for the political community as a whole. It follows that, on behalf of the Catholic conscience, one can reprove a specific moral behaviour while admitting the merits of the legislation that tolerates it.
And I say again what I have already said in this house: I do not feel it would be right for me to impose my religious beliefs on anyone else in Canada.
To go back to the quotation:
5)	Catholics, as much as any other citizens, have the right and the duty to exert pressures that the laws might reflect as much as possible the values they consider fundamental for the protection of the commonweal. But, in so doing, they must not fall prey to sectarianism and intolerance.
Mr. Speaker, since the beginning of the debate, we have heard all kinds of things concerning sectarianism and intolerance. Open or veiled charges have been brought against those who are not opposed to the bill.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
I suggest that some of these charges are absolutely untrue. For instance, it was said that abortion and homosexuality were being legalized. That is not true. Quite special, exceptional and marginal cases are involved, under very specific circumstances.


André-Gilles Fortin: That is not true.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Mr. Speaker, some people went even further: during the last electoral campaign, it was intimated that the leader of the government himself could be depraved, because he advocated such a bill. It seems to me that that is in full contradiction with the religious principle, acknowledged by all
Criminal Code
faiths, namely that charity is the first duty of those who boast of their religious principles.
Mr. Speaker, after reading the evidence prepared by theologians who do not belong to the lesser breeds, and published in an official review of the diocese of Quebec, let them give up that kind of religious demagoguery, shot through and through with the most odious type of intolerance, and inflicted upon us since we started to discuss this bill; we should realize that as legislators, we should neither hear confessions nor judge.
Some day, the Creator will do all that, He who looked into the heart of Man. Our function lies in making laws, according to common sense and to the rules that have just been set by Catholic theologians and theologians from other religions, who as much as say that this bill does not go far enough.
I think it is important that this be put on record.


Mr. Stewart (Cochrane):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. The hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Stewart) is rising on a point of order.


Ralph Wesley Stewart: Mr. Speaker, this debate is getting too long. Obviously, everything that can be said about this amendment relating to homosexuality has already been said.
We hear hon. members repeating the same arguments over and over, and if all members could co-operate we could perhaps carry on with another amendment.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, first I wish to thank my colleague from Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) for sponsoring in my absence the amendment I had introduced, because I had to undergo some medical examinations. I want to thank also the hon. members from this side of the house who supported my amendment.
The amendment I am moving is very simple, Mr. Speaker. Its purpose is merely the deletion from the omnibus bill, of section 7 which deals with homosexuality.
I would not want my proposal to be understood by some government members and particularly the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Mongrain) who has just resumed his seat after presenting so eloquently a religious principle, and after having accused the opposition to take refuge behind religion, he himself-
April 17, 1969
7648	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Georges-J. Valade: -Mr. Speaker, the hon. member said that we were taking refuge behind-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. The hon. member for Trois-Rivieres is rising on a question of privilege.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: I would like to make a correction, Mr. Speaker. I quoted the opinion of theologians but I did not express mine. On the opposition side, they quoted opinions of improvised theologians.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I was simply referring to what the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres said about an article issued by Catholic theologians. He read it. He was taking refuge behind it. He was accepting the article or rejecting its contents.
As he used it to correct some allegations of the opposition, we can suppose that he sincerely believes that this religious article is well founded and wants to take refuge behind it.
I do not want to take such an uncompromising stand as that which he denounced, and become myself a cause of error, though I have before me theological opinions diametrically opposed to those just expressed by the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Mongrain) in his brilliant and eloquent plea for the bill under consideration.
In my opinion, besides being untimely, Bill C-150 cannot be justified in the present circumstances, because it tends to allow adults to commit an act which, under the Criminal Code, is now considered illegal. The government asks us to pass such a bill with a view to legalizing an act committed in private between two persons of the same sex.
My colleague from Trois-Rivieres shakes his head; however, if the hon. member has difficulty in understanding the case, he can refer to the answers that were given a while ago by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) in reply to our questions, although his remarks seemed a little foggy.
Mr. Speaker, such an amendment is certainly out of place in a parliament and in a society like ours.
In his remarks, the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres has said that the State, when legislating, should take into consideration the customs and the ways of life prevailing among the members of the community.
I do not know, Mr. Speaker, that in our society the morals or manners of people are


showing homosexual tendencies and warrant the proposed amendment.
The hon. member for Trois-Rivieres spoke about intransigency, sectarism and intolerance. I could retort to him, in front of a minister who is sitting now in the house, that the Liberal party itself has indeed displayed racial sectarism and intolerance towards the leader of the Conservative party in a speech he made in the Quebec Coliseum, during the last election campaign. But I shall come back to this later.
For the time being, I shall rather confine myself to the amendment proposed by the Minister of Justice.
When we agreed on the motion for second reading of the omnibus bill and its referral to the committee on justice and legal affairs it was understood that the hon. members of the opposition and all the members of the committee would be entirely free to air their views, to bring in amendments, to call witnesses in order that every part of the bill and every amendment which would be proposed could be studied thoroughly.
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, some arrangements made at the outset of the committee meeting prevented hon. members of the opposition from calling witnesses, together with specialists on the question. We were prevented to present amendments. And when asking hon. members for a free vote on those amendments-



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the house that the questions to be raised at the time of adjournment tonight are as follows: The hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave)-Housing-C.M.H.C.-Criteria applicable in projects; the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Rose)-Housing-extension of loan forgiveness provision on municipal projects; the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Maclnnis)-Industry-Devco- compulsory retirement of miners.
The time being five o'clock the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, private bills, notices of motions (papers), public bills.
April 17, 1969


Mr. Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, we have had some discussion on this matter. Hon. members who are interested in participating in private members' hour do not object, if there is unanimous consent of the house, to proceeding with item No. 1 under private bills, namely, consideration of the report stage and subsequent by third reading, if that should come about, of Bill S-16, to incorporate Transcoastal Life Assurance Company. I do not think we will need more than a few minutes to debate it. After that we could go back to the normal order of business and consider notices of motions for papers.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Does the house agree that we proceed in the order suggested by the hon. member?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PRIVATE BILLS


Mr. D. Gordon Blair (Grenville-Carlelon) moved: that Bill S-16, to incorporate Transcoastal Life Assurance Company, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, be concurred in.
Motion (for concurrence) agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: When shall the said bill be read the third time?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Maintainant.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Duncan Gordon Blair: the third reading of the bill.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, before the formal motion is put to the house may I be permitted to say a few words about this bill. This company is one which, by virtue of the construction of the bill and by virtue of a decision of the company, will become a Canadian owned company within a certain period of time in conformity with the provisions of the insurance act. The position taken by the company is in agreement with the position we in this party have been taking for some time in this house, namely, that companies which seek to become incorporated in Canada to do business in Canada should become Canadian companies in the full sense 29180-484J
Private. Bills
of the word. In other words, they should be Canadian owned.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
To those seeking to have similar companies incorporated during this or subsequent sessions and to those who are sponsoring them, I commend the evidence before the Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs when they considered this bill in detail. There are some declarations in it which are highly commendable. They expressed their feeling about Canada, as did the witnesses who appeared on behalf of the company. If other companies would take a similar course, ease of passage through this house would be almost guaranteed. This is our hope and objective. I am sure that in the theory no one disagrees with this. It is just a matter of trying to put it into practice.
We in this party believe the real mark of good Canadian corporate citizenship for companies wanting to do business and make a profit in Canada is for them to become fully Canadian owned.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Is it the
pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



MOTIONS (PAPERS) HARBOURS ROBERTS BANK, B.C., DEVELOPMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Mr. Rose-That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of all correspondence, memoranda and other communications received by any member of the administration and prepared by any person in the Public Service of Canada since January 1, 1967, relating to the joint federal-provincial development of the Roberts Bank port in British Columbia, including any railways connected thereto.
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I have been in discussion with the hon. member for Fraser Valley West and on his behalf I ask consent to withdraw this motion.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: By consent, the motion is withdrawn.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.
April 17, 1969
7650	COMMONS
Judgments of the Supreme Court of Canada [Translation]



JUDGMENTS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA

André-Gilles Fortin: That an humble Address he presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a return showing, since the Supreme Court of Canada was instituted (a) the number of judgments rendered by judges whose mother tongue was French and, of those, the number of judgments rendered (i) in French (ii) in English (b) of the judgments rendered in English by judges whose mother tongue is French, the number of judgments respecting Quebec (c) the number of judgments rendered in French by judges whose mother tongue is English.


Mr. Canlin:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I respectfully submit that this1 motion should be declared out of order because by merely reading it, one can see that the hon. member is trying to get statistical data which are already available.
The judgment referred to are available and anyone can compile them. All the information requested by this motion, are public documents.
Therefore, a motion of this kind could be made only in the case where a document would not be public, and if it should be made public, a motion would be needed.
For this reason, I submit this motion should be declared out of order because everyone knows that the Supreme Court judgments are published and therefore, public. If the hon. member wants to bring statistics together, he is welcome to do it. In fact, anybody can do it, since this statistical information is official.
I therefore maintain that this motion must be declared out of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: As the
Chair is not aware of the precedents upon which the hon. parliamentary secretary bases his comments regarding the admissibility of that motion, I should like him to state them in order to enlighten the Chair.
Meanwhile we shall go on with the debate.


André-Gilles Fortin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
After that long and laborious- debate which must lead to the passing of the omnibus bill,
I think that hon. members can still use their privilege and ask the government for information.
I am glad I presented that motion to throw light on the Supreme Court, on its relations with the provinces, especially the province of
[Tile Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard).]

Quebec, and to determine whether the Supreme Court is faithful to the image of Canada, as we would like to see it, that is a bilingual country.
Mr. Speaker, many things occurred since January 15, the date on which that motion was presented. In fact, on that day, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner), who is now piloting the omnibus bill, suggested that this notice of motion asking for certain information on the bilingualism or unilingualism of the judges of the Supreme Court was actually a request for statistical data.
Moreover, what the parliamentary secretary has just said shows that I was right.
Mr. Speaker, I humbly believe that the minister as well as the parliamentary secretary are imputing motives to me.
If I wanted some statistics Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Dominion Bureau of Statistics. Supposing that I was looking for such data- the minister is once again imputing motives to me-I would not do so for the sake of freely disposing of them, because I would then be wasting the time of the house, the minister, his parliamentary secretary and his officials, as well as mine, a precious time in all cases.
That is why I will be careful not to gather useless statistical information. On the contrary, I am most anxious to determine to what extent the Supreme Court, at first sight an untouchable and unassailable institution, is one where bilingualism is honoured or whether its attribute is rather unilingualism.
Therefore, it is not a matter of statistical data, but of an essential principle of today's Canada, respect of bilingualism.
If I had sought statistical information, Mr. Speaker, I would have asked how many judgments have been rendered in French and in English, and how many judges of the Supreme Court spoke English only and how many of them had French for their mother tongue. Then, the minister would have given me the information, and I would have thanked him. What would have been gained? Nothing!
I want to know, Mr. Speaker, what influence the Anglo-Saxon language exerts on the Supreme Court, and Anglo-Saxon laws on the provinces, with regard to bilingualism.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
Had I been provided with answers, Mr. Speaker, I would have had statistics enabling me to decide to what extent the English is used as compared with French. Then I could
April 17, 1969

have formed an opinion which, anyhow, would not have accurately affected the practical reality of bilingualism in the Supreme Court. That is why I am asking whether the judgments have been rendered in English or in French and whether the mother tongue of the judges concerned was French or English.
My primary concern, Mr. Speaker is to ascertain whether French and English are on the same footing in the Supreme Court. Secondly, whether the judge whose mother tongue is French must always give precedence to the English language or whether it is the opposite. Thirdly, which is the working language at the Supreme Court? I do say the working language and by that I mean the language used for writing and for every day work.
What I want to know is whether both languages are used at the Supreme Court or is there any discrimination against one or the other? In other words, are both official languages treated alike there? And in order to know that, Mr. Speaker, I am asking the Minister of Justice by way of this notice of motion for production of papers to tell us to what extent the judges whose mother language is French are free to work in their own language and whether they have sometimes to conform, to the British traditions?
I know, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Justice is well enough aware of it to acknowledge that the distinction I am making now is in keeping with my first purpose which was not just to get figures or statistics, but rather to ascertain whether the Supreme Court is a genuine bilingual organism, which I seriously doubt.
On the eve of passing the bill on the official languages and following the publication of reports of the Royal Commission on bilingualism and bicultucralism, it seems to me normal and essential that the house be allowed to know whether bilingualism exists or not ini this federal institution, the Supreme Court.
This is an Anglo-Saxon stronghold, Mr. Speaker, and I do think that the reason why the government does not want to supply us with those documents is that they do not want the Canadian people to know that the Supreme Court is an Anglo-Saxon bastion. In addition, Mr. Speaker, the House of Commons has never inquired (enquerie) in all its history about the status and use of French and English at the Supreme Court.
Judgments of the Supreme Court of Canada


Jean Marchand: Not "enquerie", but "enquise".


André-Gilles Fortin: Never in all its history, Mr. Speaker, has this august assembly inquired, never has one single member inquired about what was going on at the Supreme Court in respect of bilingualism. This has been confirmed to me, for the information of the would-be Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, by the House of Commons Distribution Office.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. The Minister of Regional Economic Expansion on a point of order.


Jean Marchand: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
When one speaks in defense of the French language, it might perhaps be more suitable to use it properly. It was "enquis" and not "enqueri" that was the right term.


André-Gilles Fortin: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I did not get what the minister said. Could he repeat his remarks?


Some hon. Members:: He gave you a lesson in French.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, everyone concerned recognizes that the Supreme Court of Canada is mostly Anglo-Saxon-I will prove it later-and that the room left to the French language is very small, if not non-existent.
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, the Frenchspeaking civil servants at the Supreme Court do not work in their mother tongue, but in the other language.
Has there been any one case where the defendant could have had justice done to him in his own language? Is that true or not?
Insofar as the appointment of judges is concerned, does it involve the "language" factor? If so, to what extent?
When someone's services are required at or when he is appointed to the Supreme Court, if he is English-speaking or French-speaking, is it required from him that he be bilingual?
These are all questions related to the motion before us and which I consider essential, particularly in view of the constitutional review expected to take place soon. It is most important, Mr. Speaker, that we know the answers to those questions.
April 17, 1969
7652	COMMONS
Judgments of the Supreme Court of Canada
And just to prove that what I contend is not unfounded, I will put on record) some quotations to illustrate that we do no wish to compile statistics, but to warn the government, or the hon. members of all parties, in order to improve that situation so that these two languages will be treated on an equal footing.
Mr. Jacques-Yvan Morin, professor at the Law Faculty of the University of Montreal, wrote in the September 1967 issue of the Revue du Barreau c anadien an article entitled:
"Quebec and Constitutional Arbitration: From Scylla into Charybdis."
I shall now quote a most interesting excerpt from the above:
However, there still exist today cases where minority ethnic groups must, to settle their differences with the majority group, appeal to courts of justice that are established and appointed by that majority. All relationships of political subjection, colonial structures for instance, have given rise to such situations. Many examples could be mentioned of conquered people, more numerous even than the population of the metropolis, seeing their laws and their institutions brought under the control of foreign courts and subjected to their interpretation methods.
Mr. Speaker, I shall mention a concrete case to show how French-speaking people are being treated and what is the working language in the Supreme Court.
Anyone interested in judicial and constitutional matters knows that Mr. Morin is an expert in that field. He stated and I quote:
There is no certainty, for example, that French-Canadian judges appointed by Ottawa since 1875, on the whole, have, to any substantial extent, departed from the lines adopted by their English colleagues. This is in no way an attempt to cast doubts on the intellectual qualities of the ten French-Canadian jurists who have sat on the Supreme Court since that time-
It is worthy of note that the above was written in 1967 and that few French-Canadi-ans have been appointed to the Supreme Court, Mr. Speaker.
-on the Supreme Court since that time and have been most of them excellent law technicians, but it must be noted that they were slaves to the system. We understand their position better as soon as we know that in most decisions on constitutional matters French-speaking judges draft their judgments in English. Mr. Justice H.-E. Taschereau, although a strong opponent of confederation during the 1865 debates, drafted 33 of his decisions out of 35 in English; Mr. Justice P.-B. Mignault, 17 times out of 19; Mr. Justice D. Girouard, all his decisions; Mr. Justice L. Brodeur, 17 times out of 20; Mr. Justice T. Rinfret, 28 times out of 35.


s (5:20 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, this proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that I am not simply looking for statistics since at the present time some very conclusive, although incomplete, information is available. 1 want the Department of Justice to see to it that the Supreme Court which is a fundamental body in a federative system, reflects the image of Canada.
We do not want to impose our views to the English-speaking people nor subject them to discrimination but we simply want them to understand that our linguistic rights are equal to theirs in the Supreme Court of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, we have no grudge against English-speaking judges because they are competent. However, the fact that up to 1967 only ten French-speaking judges had been appointed to the Supreme Court since its establishment, is an example of discrimination because there are certainly more than ten French Canadian judges competent enough to be appointed to the Supreme Court.
Besides1, Mr. Speaker, this is the worst kind of discrimination if French Canadian judges on the Supreme Court cannot draft their judgment in their mother tongue but that, as in over 85 per cent of the cases, they should do it in the other official language.
Mr. Speaker, it is important in my opinion not to deal lightly with this matter and the house should give it its undivided attention.
By raising that question, Mr. Speaker, I do not mean to offend anybody. I am not alluding to anyone in particular, even not to the Prime Minister, his assistants or his colleagues who are making efforts at the present time in order to ensure respect for the principle of bilingualism.
We are paying millions now for the drafting of the report of the royal commission on bilingualism and biculturalism. And when this commission will publish its report on public service, there will not be a single word-I know it from a usually reliable source-about the public service as a whole.
That is why I have to put questions on the order paper in order to know to what extent the French language rights are being respected in the different federal departments and whether French Canadians are adequately represented. Now, Mr. Speaker, we want to obtain the same information with regard to the Supreme Court.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
April 17, 1969


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. The hon. Minister of Regional Economic Expansion on a point of order.


Jean Marchand: Since I was once a member of the royal commission on bilingualism and biculturalism and since I know very well that bilingualism in the public service is one of the subjects that will be dealt with, I wonder what are the grounds of my hon. friend for saying that there will be no reference to it in the commission reports.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad that the hon. minister is asking me such a question.
My reliable source was precisely the hon. minister himself, and I wanted him to admit that the commission would deal with that subject. I thank the hon. minister and I am very happy Mr. Speaker, to have the assurance that the Royal Commission on bilingualism and biculturalism will deal with it.
I should like to quote the words of Mr. Morin in this regard. They will give us food for thought; we should, as parliamentarians, look fully into the matter.
I quote:
However, any constitutional arbitration systemthe expression and the problem are fashionable these days.
-which would result In systematically subjecting Quebec to the decisions of a court whose members would in the majority be English-Canadians or appointed by the central government could not win the confidence and the support of Quebeckers, as the statements we have mentioned indicate. It is pointless to object that all States, even souvereign States, now accept that their disputes be taken to court for, in that case, the judges or arbitrators almost always represent third parties, whereas in the present Canadian system-
This is fundamental, Mr. Speaker.
*-the central power is at one and the same time judge and party. Nor can one claim that this question is of little importance, as the advocates of the status quo sometimes maintain; just imagine what the reaction would be in federal quarters if the provinces appointed all the judges of the Supreme Court.
Mr. Speaker, there would be a general outcry. All ministers and hopefuls would say that the provinces have no say in the matter, that this does not fall within their jurisdiction; yet the provinces are judged by the Supreme Court.
I bring my remarks to a close with these words;
Canadian constitutional arbitration, as it exists at the present time-
Judgments of the Supreme Court of Canada
Mr. Morin's judgment is most severe-
-drags all sorts of remnants of the Victorian era and of British colonialism; it makes Quebec dependent on the central authority which has gradually replaced the imperial power. Any jurisdictional system that would claim to perpetuate such a situation would be a constant source of tension, and even of division, between Quebec and the Canadian federation.
Mr. Speaker, it is not only Mr. Morin who is interested in this question. There is also Mr. Jacques Brossard, a professor at the Institute of Public Law at the University of Montreal. He has also studied the evolution of the Supreme Court and all the cases brought before it. He reaches the following conclusion, published in "Le Quebec dans le Canada de demain", a most objective work published in Montreal, at les Editions du jour in 1967. Mr. Brossard said the following, and I quote:
The jurisprudence of the federal Supreme Court has proved, on the contrary, inasmuch as this Court was free to judge according to its own tendencies quite favourable to the federal State.
Its first judgments were centralizing. They remained so inasmuch as the weight of the jurisprudence of the Judicial Committee did not compel it to take into account the balance required by federalism-
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)


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


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, only one more minute, with the consent of the house.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Is it so
agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, it is useless to go on quoting Mr. Brossard since he merely bears out Mr. Morin. In my opinion, all members have understood the point.
Before concluding my remarks, Mr. Speaker, I would like to put forward a proposal to prove that the motion could actually be adopted and that something similar already exists.
Members who practise law are perhaps aware of the existence of the Jackett charter concerning all the judgments rendered by the Privy Council.
Mr. Speaker, in that charter, one finds in one column all the judgments and in another, the year in which the case was heard. In another column, appears the name of the
April 17, 1969
7654	COMMONS
Judgments of the Supreme Court of Canada judge and in each case, the section of the act concerned.
For the purpose of the present motion, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that such a charter should be used, but with the addition of a column indicating the mother language of the judge and another one showing the language in which the judgment was rendered. Then, one could see, Mr. Speaker, that the Supreme Court is really an Anglo-Saxon body. Therefore, the greatest possible number of parliamentarians and citizens should take an interest in the matter so as to improve the situation of bilingualism at the Supreme Court.
Mr. Speaker, to conclude my remarks, I want to say that I would highly appreciate it if the minister or his parliamentary secretary would agree with the government assent to produce these documents.
If the minister is willing to keep a gentleman's agreement, I would be prepared to withdraw this motion. If he says that it is too tedious a task to go right back to 1867, let him do the same research for the last ten years, for instance. This would show us whether bilingualism is complied with or not.
Mr. Speaker, those are the positive suggestions I make to the minister's parliamentary secretary, in the hope that they will receive favourable consideration and that we will know soon if the Supreme Court is a reflection of Canada or if it will remain an Anglo-Saxon preserve.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I have no intention to discuss the merits of this debate.
The hon. member for Lotbiniere spoke about two things. He spoke about the use of French at the Supreme Court of Canada and then he spoke at length and with relevance, specially in quoting Mr. Morin, about the constitutional status of the Supreme Court, which is a different matter, a very important matter indeed, but which has nothing to do with the motion he himself put on the order paper.
However, we will perhaps have an opportunity to discuss this later. I will only make a few comments on the use of official languages at the Supreme Court.
I think the hon. member is right to be concerned and to enquire about the use of both official languages at the Supreme Court of Canada. In my view, however, his request is not very reasonable and I am not saying that because I am afraid that some startling things might be unveiled.


Mr. Speaker, I agree that the language used in 90 per cent or more of cases, in the Supreme Court, is English. I would be surprised if my presumption were not confirmed by facts because it is not a question of concealing anything.
I merely claim that the government is asked1 to do a useless task when a royal commission on bilingualism and biculturalism has inquired into all aspects of bilingualism within the public service commission and courts of justice. As soon as we have the results of that inquiry, we will be in a position to take any remedial action that is required.
In my opinion, the motion calls for useless work. If it were acted upon, it would only disclose what everyone already knows. I fully agree with what the hon. member said. That would serve no purpose at all.
With regard to recommendations for improving the situation, I think we can wait for the publication of the report of the royal commission on bilingualism and biculturalism; thus, we will be in a better position to correct a situation which I find deplorable.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, by proposing this motion the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) is seeking to establish whether the Supreme Court is a bilingual or some other kind of court. I think the hon. member answered that question himself, as did the minister to an extent, when he classified it as an Anglo-Saxon court. I believe we, in Canada, have always considered that the Supreme Court is there for the purpose of dispensing justice, and not for reflecting the language nature of the nation or any part of it. We have always required that appointments to any court be on the basis of the ability of the individual appointed, and not whether he has a certain language as his mother tongue or is able to speak more than one language with any degree of fluency. I believe that ability, and not linguistic origin, should be our concern with regard to the Supreme Court.
We had a parallel situation not too many years ago when a proposition was put forward by a previous administration regarding an inquiry into Indian affairs, and the appointment of Professor Hawthorn from British Columbia as the head of the commission of inquiry. This was partly because Professor Hawthorn had in earlier years undertaken another study of an aspect of Indian affairs. Regretfully, the proposal for that study had to be postponed because there developed
April 17, 1969	COMMONS
within the cabinet a demand, so-called, for bilingualism. As a consequence, we ended up with the Hawthorn-Tremblay commission being appointed, on the basis of one man being of French origin and the other of English origin. I think that was really ridiculous, because either one of those gentlemen would have done a credible job by himself within the terms of the inquiry. But here was a situation in which recognition was given to the demand for the commission to be of a bilingual nature. So far as I am concerned, this did not enhance the position of the commission one bit.
I believe the gentleman concerned was Professor Tremblay. If I have misnamed him,
I apologize. He, Professor Hawthorn, or any one of a number of people could have done a job comparable with the job that was done. I think that for us to start involving ourselves in the Supreme Court and our court structures, which are there for the purpose of dispensing Justice, being fair and interpreting laws for us, by attempting to intimate that the selection of the members of the court should be influenced by the factor of bilingualism, would simply be catering further to the exploitation of either language such as has occurred with certain political groups in this nation, not the least of which was Jean Lesage when he was premier of the province of Quebec.
To ask us to support this motion is, I think, simply asking us to give some further support to some concept of divisiveness within our nation over the matter of language and culture, when our purpose should be to think in terms of Canada as one entity and of people in Canada as Canadians regardless of their mother tongue or heritage. I would not support this motion because I think that by so doing, even looking at the imbalanced way in which it is constructed, I would simply be supporting the concepts of bigotry that are strong enough in our country without adding further fuel to them. I do not say this in any unkind way to the sponsor of the motion, but I think it might be just one more addition to those forces which are not out to unify us.
[Translation\


Jean-Charles Cantin: Mr. Speaker, I simply want to remind the house that the member has just drawn the conclusions of his own question.
He has made representations and, as he was reminded by the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand), he is aware 29180-485
DEBATES	7655
Judgments of the Supreme Court of Canada of the reforms now under way concerning bilingualism within the public service, and the Supreme Court of Canada.
I tend to believe that the information the hon. member is asking for would not only be useless but also unavailable at the present time and that one cannot expect public funds to be spent to compile statistical data for the sole purposes mentioned by the hon. member.
I will therefore ask him to consider withdrawing his motion since he knows that the Minister of Justice will certainly examine his representation. It would be sensible of him, I believe, to do so since we do not have the required information and therefore cannot provide it.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I want to say just a word about this motion. As hon. members know, my support of the bilingual character of Canada and the need to respect it is pretty strong. I have stated my position on a number of occasions. But I would like to suggest to the hon. member who placed this motion on the order paper that the kind of bilingualism he is talking about distorts the notion of bilingualism in Canada, and by distorting it may well do the whole subject a great deal of harm. Bilingualism in the courts of this country surely means only that people who appear in our courts, either as counsel or as citizens, can carry on their case in either official language. If it means more than that, then there will be a great many problems created in this country. If there is any compulsion that certain judgments, because they cover a certain area of the country must be written in French while others must be written in English, we will really be asking for serious trouble.
What should be available to the citizens of Canada is, in my and any other reasonable person's understanding of bilingualism, the right for counsel appearing before the Supreme Court of Canada to make their arguments in either official language and that members of the court should also be free to give judgment in either official language. I have read judgments of the court on cases which have come before it from Ontario and sometimes from British Columbia written by one of the French speaking judges of the court in his mother tongue.
The fact that a judgment is written in French-and it happens mostly in criminal appeals-and concerns an appeal from some
April 17, 1969
7656	COMMONS DEBATES
Judgments of the Supreme Court of Canada province other than Quebec or New Brunswick makes no difference. The freedom to write the judgment either in English or in French is what bilingualism means, and that relates as well to the freedom to present the case in either language. I hope that all the members of the court will understand either official language. This has been the case, in latter years anyway, in my experience. I have not appeared before the Supreme Court very often but it seems to me that the members of that court have been able to follow an argument delivered in either language, and certainly to read the factums in either language. That is what bilingualism means. To attempt to get information intended to enable someone to force judges to write their judgments in either one or the other language is not bilingualism but a kind of fanaticism that can only do harm to the unity of Canada and to the cause of bilingualism.
My colleague, the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) is absolutely right, in my judgment, that what should concern us above all about the Supreme Court of Canada or any other court is whether or not the appointee to that court will apply the law in a fair, just and objective manner. In order to achieve bilingualism in the court it has been the practice for a long time-I cannot say whether this has been the practice since confederation-to have English speaking members of that court acquaint themselves with the other official language. This has certainly been the practice since I have had anything to do with the courts.
I once had the privilege of knowing a judge of the court who later became chief justice of Canada and one of the best known jurists in the history of our country. I refer to Sir Lyman Duff. I learned from him that all members of that court found it desirable and necessary to acquaint themselves with the other official language so that the work could be carried out in a fair and civilized manner. The objective of the court can best be carried out by men who can mete out justice in a fair and equitable way, in accordance with the law, and who have the competency and ability to do so. There are men and women in the legal profession who can speak either language and who are fully qualified, whether they are French or English speaking, and who have the integrity and the training to carry out the extremely important task of a judge of the Supreme Court of Canada.
I repeat, however, that to require that only one language be used in certain cases and

another language be used in other cases is divisive and harmful and cannot do the cause of bilingualism any good. It can certainly not do the cause of unity in Canada any good, but will create a great deal of division in this country and encourage an unfortunate backlash against the whole concept of bilingualism which has already occurred in the rest of Canada. It is one of the unhappy facts in the present situation in our country that certain events in some parts of the country have created a backlash against what over a year ago appeared to be accepted all across Canada. I say to the hon. member who put this motion on the order paper and to some other members of this house who are constantly harping on this subject in and out of season, when it is relevant and when it is irrelevant, when it is acceptable and when it is obviously not acceptable, that when they are doing this kind of thing they are doing the cause which they are trying to support a great deal of harm in the rest of Canada.
Some perspective has to be maintained toward this subject, and this motion goes way beyond any reasonable perspective that anyone can define. Therefore, I join the parliamentary secretary in pleading with the hon. member who sponsored this motion to withdraw it and not try to force this house to divide itself on this kind of subject. It is unnecessary, undesirable and not beneficial to the cause which he supports.


Mr. Warren Allmand (Noire-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, I merely wish to take part in this debate to say a few words. While I do not agree with the motion as put by the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin), I have few words to say in disagreement with what has been said by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) and also by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis). The hon. member for Skeena said that the judges of the Supreme Court should be picked on the basis of their ability to efficiently render justice or make decisions; in other words on the basis of their ability to be competent judges. This statement was backed up by the hon. member for York South. Let me say that I do not see how a court or a judge can competently render justice if he cannot understand and read the language of at least one third of the people in Canada. I say this as a person who served on a committee of the junior bar association of Montreal. When I was on that committee we prepared a brief which we presented to the royal commision on bilingualism and bicuilturalism. We studied this
April 17, 1969	COMMONS
very issue and we found some disgraceful situations. We found thatt many lawyers in the province of Quebec who could barely speak and write in English were forced, when they came before the Supreme Court of Canada, to try to write their briefs in English. They were also forced to get English speaking counsel because they knew that in that court out of nine judges there were only three or four at the most who understood French. They were put to a much greater expense and to more trouble than the English speaking lawyers and litigants. Both the English and French speaking lawyers in the province of Quebec felt this situation was extremely unjust and objected to the fact that one language group in Canada could not go to a court and expect to have justice done to them when they presented their factums, their briefs and their arguments in their own language.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
They could, of course, take a chance. They could plead in French and they could present their factums in French. But they could not be sure that these would be listened to and read by all six judges of the court. In order to take no chance of losing a case, they were forced to obtain English-speaking counsel if they themselves could not speak English well enough, and then go through the laborious exercise of having all their factums and arguments translated into English.
Competency in the law is, of course, a most important criterion for the appointment of persons to the Supreme Court, but surely in this day and age it should be possible for us in Canada to pick nine men who are not only good lawyers but who are also bilingual. If we cannot do this, or at least aim toward it, there must be something wrong with this country. I do not expect we could have nine bilingual judges overnight but certainly we could work toward this goal.
There is another problem which faces French-speaking Quebec lawyers who must deal with the Supreme Court. There are many precedents which they must consult in order to prepare their cases. They must read volume after volume and judgment after judgment printed in the English language. Judges should be permitted to give judgments in whichever language they wish, I agree, but I certainly think those judgments should be well translated in order that Quebec lawyers in consulting these many precedents, could read them in the French language. I entered this debate because I believe the purpose of the courts is to dispense justice and serve the
29180-485 h
DEBATES	7657
Judgments of the Supreme Court of Canada people. Part of their competency lies in the effectiveness of their dealings with the people who are being served. And the people of this country are both English and French speaking.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Eymard Corbin (Madawaska-Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I take part in this debate on the motion presented by the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) because it is a matter of principle. I have to say certain things.
However, I want to acknowledge the commendable effort of the member for Lotbiniere, even if he failed, in the course of this debate, to call the members and the public's attention sufficiently to very real problems. Yet, he will have accomplished a lot by this simple gesture.
The Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) and the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Can-tin) have given worthwhile reasons to induce the member for Lotbiniere to withdraw his motion and I agree with them.
However, I would not vote against the motion of the member for Lotbiniere for the same reasons or the same motives put forward by the hon. members for Skeena and York South (Messrs. Howard and Lewis).
With due kindness, I certainly do not want to cast reflections on those hon. members nor accuse them, because I know quite well that they, at least, do not have the same background as I have. Indeed, they have not lived in a more bilingual Canada for which, however, they are both longing. I think we are still far from the entente cordiale which we are all seeking as Canadians, and I think that they have just demonstrated, by their remarks, that we have not yet reached that stage.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Eymard G. Corbin: I want to talk quite charitably, Mr. Speaker. I repeat that I do not want to cast reflections on those hon. members. Their background is different from mine, but their remarks indicate, however, that there is much progress to be done. They may have misinterpreted the remarks of the member for Lotbiniere who tried nevertheless to be rather fair. It is perhaps because of their susceptibility of English-speaking people that they felt they were being singled out and that they thought necessary to retort as they did.

April 17, 1969
Criminal Code
Those are, Mr. Speaker, the remarks that I wanted to make.


Duncan Gordon Blair: Mr. Speaker, we are talking about one of the great agencies of our country, the Supreme Court, which throughout its history has been a remarkably fruitful federal institution.
Like the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) I have had the privilege from time to time of appearing in that court. Anyone who appears there knows that its proceedings are carried on equally in French or English, whether in writing or orally, and contrary to what was said by my hon. friend from Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand) the reports of the court are published in two languages.
It may be that because of the nature of our country not every judge who sits on that court is thoroughly bilingual, but it is a matter of common knowledge to those of us who live in the City of Ottawa that judges of that court make a very determined and valid effort to become bilingual.
What I am a little afraid of is that we in this debate, have fallen, perhaps unwittingly, into the trap of casting criticism on the court which is the head of the judicial system of this country and I do not think any of us would wish to do so. For this reason, I think this would be a most inappropriate motion upon which to divide the house.


Thomas Miller Bell: Six o'clock.


Mr.   Spaaker@: It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of Bill C-150, to amend the Criminal Code, the Parole Act, the Penitentiary Act, the Prisons and Reformatories Act, and to make certain consequential amendments to the Combines Investigation Act, the Customs Tariff and the National Defence Act, as reported (with

amendments) from the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
And the motion of Mr. Woolliams (for Mr. Valade):
That Bill C-150, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Parole Act, the Penitentiary Act, the Prisons and Reformatories Act and to make certain consequential amendments to the Combines Investigation Act, the Customs Tariff and the National Defence Act, be amended by deleting therefrom clause 7.
Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, when the house adjourned this afternoon, I was making some comments on how the committee had proceeded in order to study the various amendments proposed to the omnibus bill.
However, to back up my arguments, I would like to remind you of what the Minister of Justice said when he introduced this omnibus bill in the house for first reading a few months ago.
I am quoting him from memory. According to what he said, this was to be one of the most important legislation in Canadian parliamentary history. If this is the case, Mr. Speaker, we were entitled to expect that the members of the house would have the freedom to discuss all the aspects of the bill, both in the house and in committee.
We also hoped that we could call all the experts and witnesses necessary to collect the information which would enable members of the committee to form an opinion on the subject and to make really useful suggestions to the house.
Unfortunately, right from the first sittings of the committee, I found, to my disappointment, that a truly deplorable attitude was being taken which was creating a precedent with regard to the procedure to be followed.
We were informed that we would have the opportunity to test the efficiency of this new procedure which had been proposed and agreed to by the opposition. With this new procedure, committees would be able to consider the subject matter and the merits of each proposed amendment.
Unfortunately, the committee decided to expedite the matters that were referred to it by the house. Furthermore, we were informed that the time allotted to each committee member would be limited to a maximum of ten minutes, and that each party represented on this committee would be entitled to call upon two experts at the most. That meant that the
April 17, 1969

Liberal party and the Progressive Conservative party, could call two witnesses each, and the New Democratic party as well as the Ralliement creditiste, only one each.
If it was true, as the minister had stated when introducing his bill in the house, that this was one of the most important issues that parliament had ever had to consider, I found it rather strange, Mr. Speaker, that there were such limitations on the number of witnesses that could be called before the committee to give evidence on the various aspects of the bill. I refrained from attending the sittings of the committee in order to draw to the public's attention the manner in which the opposition parties' members were being forced to accept without reservations the instructions that the members of the Liberal party seemed to have received from the government.
In order to support this assertion, I should like, Mr. Speaker, to refer to the remarks made by the Liberal member for York East (Mr. Otto) in a letter addressed to his constituents, and I quote:
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)

If I may paraphrase, the hon. member said he was disappo'nted in the committee system because committee members were told by the government exactly how to vote and had to vote exactly as the government told them to vote.

Mr. Speaker, such is the way hon. members on the government side approached the amendments to the omnibus bill that were put forward in the standing committee on justice and legal affairs.
I was anxious to make those opening remarks in order to put in its proper context the problem that faced hon. members who had been given the assurance, when they voted on the motion for second reading of the bill, that the question was meant to refer the bill to the standing committee on justice and legal affairs, where they would be quite free to examine thoroughly each of its clauses.
Now, Mr. Speaker, we are back in the house after having repeatedly tried to have the committee approve amendments that were completely sound and acceptable to the government.
Criminal Code
For instance, I would like to refer to the amendment I had suggested, and that I intend to move again in the course of the debate, concerning the abortion clause and which is meant to discharge of any responsibility whatsoever a medical practitioner who might refuse to perform an abortion at the request of a female person or one of her relatives.
The Minister of Justice was kind enough to send me the text of another similar amendment which, according to him, was more in accordance with the legal terminology and more agreeable to the committee.
I therefore moved those two amendments, but neither one has been approved by the committee. Government members have voted unanimously against the proposed amendments.
Here again, Mr. Speaker-


Jean-Charles Cantin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In my opinion, we are not discussing abortion but a particular amendment that has nothing to do with it. I think the hon. member should stick to the amendment now under discussion.
When the house will deal with the amendment, the hon. member will then be able to refer to what happened in the committee, but that cannot be allowed at this time.


Mr. Hogarlh:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege. The hon. member suggested that members of the cabinet or of the government directed members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs as to how they ought to vote in that committee. That is just not so. I was a member of that committee and proposed many resolutions and amendments which were not accepted by the committee. At no time did any member of Her Majesty's Privy Council or of the government tell me how I ought to vote in that committee, and I resent as an affront to my personal privileges any suggestion that members of the committee were directed by anyone at all as to what motions they ought to propose in that committee or how they should vote. Anyone reading the proceedings of that committee will see that on many occasions the members of the committee were in conflict with the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) in regard to some of the matters that have been proposed in this bill.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
76G0
Criminal Code

April 17, 1969


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, in connection with the question of privilege raised by my hon. friend whom, besides, I got to know very well during the sittings of the committee and for whom I have much consideration, I must tell him that my previous remarks about the instructions received from the government cannot be ascribed to me but to one of his colleagues, the Liberal member for York East.
I think that the hon. member should raise instead the question of privilege about his colleague, the Liberal member for York East, who made that comment himself in a letter which he is supposed to have sent-


Eymard G. Corbin: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I recognize the hon. member on a point of privilege. I may point out that if the matter raised by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Hogarth) did not constitute a question of privilege then, if the question the hon. member now wishes to raise, is the same, it cannot constitute a question of privilege. Unfortunately, having just come to the Chair I am in no position to pass judgment on the original point of order of the Parliamentary Secretary. I will however, hear the hon. member on a question of privilege.


Eymard G. Corbin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member opposite says that the hon. member for York East is reported to have been instructed to vote as he was told in the committee. He tried afterwards to generalize by stating that all members, at least government members, were complying with those instructions. I deny such a remark, because when I vote in the house or in committee, I do it on my own without following any instruction.


Georges-J. Valade: I thank the hon. member for telling his colleague that he is wrong. As for me, I only read the letter which the hon. member for York East sent to his electors.
I will now return, Mr. Speaker, to the substance of the amendment which I moved and the purpose of which is to strike out clause 7 of the omnibus bill C-150, as introduced in the house.
Mr. Speaker, the reason for which I presented that motion is that the government .bill is inconsistent.
IMr. Hogarth.]
First, the bill provides for the legalization of an act committed in private between two consenting persons of 21 years of age or more. It is added that when more than two persons commit an act of homosexuality, in private, they will come within the provisions of the law.
That is one of the obvious inconsistencies of the bill. The member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Mongrain) accused us of being intolerant and strict, but the minister of Justice says that two persons who commit an act of homosexuality in private are not subject to the provisions of the law, and are not considered as criminals. However, if four homosexuals, in the same room, indulge in their passion, they will all be considered as criminals. That is where the law is illogical.
If the government really wanted to be consistent, could it not take the time to draw up a much more coherent piece of legislation? Consequently, I ask the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres and the Minister of Justice why persons of 21 years of age and more, who commit homosexual acts in private cannot be regarded as criminals, while four persons known as homosexuals, holding membership cards in homosexual clubs, are?
Is that the intolerance we are accused of by the Liberal government? Is the government not hiding behind a law that I find absolutely hypocritical, Mr. Speaker, because, on the one hand, they claim to be liberal, to seek to create a new spirit and to give a new direction to homosexuals in Canada, and on the other, they consider as criminals four homosexuals present in the same room.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
If the argument were to be carried to the limit, one should perhaps say-I see the minister smiling-that if one murder is committed it is legal, while if two are committed it is illegal; by the same token, if a young man smokes one marijuana cigarette it is legal, while if he smokes two it is illegal. It is the same kind of logic. That is the basis of the reasoning which the minister offers us.
I think that there is another thing which is still more illogical, inconsistent and utterly ridiculous. In this bill, the minister tells us a sexual act between man and woman, husband and wife in private is not considered a criminal act. Could one call a criminal the act committed in private by husband and wife? Is there anything more absurd, Mr. Speaker, than that list and that definition which the minister proposes in the bill before us?
April 17, 1369

Criminal Code
We are also asked to make the act applicable to persons whose consent is given through fear or under threat. The minister knows very well or should know that when a male person takes advantage of another male in private, proof of threat or fear is very difficult to establish. How could the minister protect persons subjected to assaults by an homosexual pervert or prostitute? The government does not offer any remedies to such situations.
According to the bill, an insane or mentally retarded person is not aware of his actions. The offending person will however be liable to prosecution under the Criminal Code. But how will proof be established that there were only two persons in the room? How will it be possible to prosecute those who violate the provisions of the omnibus bill?
The Minister of Justice has not given any consideration to those aspects of the matter. His only wish is that the question be put as soon as possible. He wants to speed up the passing of this legislation which he considers progressive but which, in my opinion, is truly backward, considering our present society.
The government, Mr. Speaker, goes even further in its lack of logic; in the same bill it asks that be dealt with as a criminal any one who has consumed a certain quantity of alcohol and about whom the police can prove-


Jean-Charles Cantin: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member is once again straying from the matter under study at the present time, namely, clause 7. This is not the time for debating the matter of the breathal-izer test. I believe the hon. member should limit his comments to clause 7.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the hon. member want to speak on the point of order?


Georges-J. Valade: I want to speak on the point of order. I think this is ridiculous. I am making an analogy between the proposed amendment and some other legislation as an example of the illogical situation which will be created by the present bill. This is my purpose.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I was listening to the hon. member fairly closely. I assumed this was what he was attempting to do. I remind the house that under the Standing Orders we have to restrict the debate to the amendment
as strictly and directly as possible. Unfortunately, I must also add that the hon. member's time has expired. Is the house disposed to grant the hon. member extra time?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Georges-J. Valade: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, but I must say that I have been interrupted several times by points of order and questions of privilege. I am about to conclude my remarks.
Mr. Speaker, I still have to say that we have discussed that matter to some extent and that we have been unable to call in experts in this field to enable us to truly form an opinion likely to assist the legislators to come to a decision. I think that we should ask the following question: Is there any advantage in passing now that clause of the bill? Would it not be appropriate to ask ourselves whether the liberalization or the legalization of homosexuality will improve our society or public morals?
If we pass this bill, will that be an example of leadership to give to our young people? What benefit-and I ask this to the Minister of Justice-would Canadian citizens get from this amendment to the Criminal Code? Will it help the homosexual or the lesbian to rehabilitate themselves? In which way does the government intend to deal with those rehabilitation measures in order that they be adopted? And why such haste to have this bill passed?
On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, I think that there are questions we could raise as to the possible advantages of deferring the consideration of this clause.
Thus we could make an exhaustive study of the problem of homosexuality. It would also be possible to see that tendency in its true perspective; it would be possible to provide adequate means to facilitate rehabilitation. Moreover, it would be possible to take the necessary steps to protect our young people from being corrupted by perverts and prostitutes in this field, and provide the authorities, the police forces with the required means to enforce the law once it is enacted.
Mr. Speaker, when we are discussing such an important bill, as the Minister of Justice said himself, I think it is necessary and important for us to know what is homosexuality. How do you define a homosexual? Is he a sick person or a criminal? If he is ill, should we consider him as a pathologic or a

April 17, 1969
Criminal Code
psychiatric case, as a sociological or a psychological evil? Is there any way of rehabilitating him, if he is truly ill? However, Mr. Speaker, we do not have in hand all the data that would enable us to assess this problem fully.
A few years ago, a group of world specialists met at Geneva, including criminologists, sociologists, psychiatrists, physiologists, pathologists, who looked into this matter for five days.
It was concluded, at the end of the five-day meeting, that the information and statistical data available was not sufficient to permit a classification of the various aspects of the problem of homosexuality.
As far as we are concerned, here in Canada, we think we are smarter than they are. We would like to rush through a legislation as yet unwarranted by our ways and customs.
I am much too confident in the future of our country to believe it is necessary today to legalize this evil.
Mr. Speaker, there are many categories of homosexuals and the minister had the opportunity to learn about them at the committee meetings. As far as I am concerned, I read many books on the subject. First of all, there are the perverted who very often become sexual criminals and are very dangerous in our society.
There are male homosexuals who prostitute themselves as women of pleasure do.
That is one of the most difficult problems and unless it is eliminated immediately and looked into thoroughly, it will prevent the government from making the proposed legislation effective.
Mr. Speaker, before concluding I would like to quote a sentence from a booklet I received recently and titled: Hope for Homosexuals, by David Wilker. I quote from page 2:
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)

And I quote in English the following paragraph:
One young homosexual boasted, "Some day we'll outnumber you, and then you 'straight' people will be the abnormal ones and we'll be the normal."
This is the kind of thing toward which we are aiming our Canadian society, and this is the type of thing which must make us think more deeply than we have on this subject.


Mr. Reid:: Are you going to look after procreation by yourself, Georges?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. If there are to be exchanges, they should be directed through the Chair.


Georges-J. Valade: I did not hear what the hon. member said, Mr. Speaker. I was much more interested in the major problem that the minister is creating for Canadians, and on some other occasion will answer this type of interjection.

Mr. Speaker, in concluding I would like to put on record those words which I have taken from an article written by the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and published on page 12 in the number of April 1963 of the review "Cite Libre". I quote:
On account of realism and efficiency, I was compelled, and may God forgive me, to betray some rebellions of my youth. But I have not yet accepted to trample on democracy. This is why on election day on April 8, I intend to vote for the New Democratic Party.
I think that it is also the duty of all those who believe that it is urgent to check the rush of the Canadian political philosophy towards stark degradation.
I have just quoted, Mr. Speaker, the author of the omnibus bill brought in by the Minister of Justice and which the house is now called upon to pass.
Mr. Speaker, I say to all conscientious members and I know that there are some on the other side of the house, as in all parties, that this is a really important and serious problem jeopardizing the welfare of our society.
In fact, this is a problem which must be looked into by experts. I therefore invite government members who might also be reluctant to support this omnibus bill-and there are some who may be absent for that reason, because they do not want to reveal their feeling in public-not to consider the political move which they will perhaps be compelled to make but rather to think of their responsibilities towards society which has elected them, in order to honour their mandate.


Mr. Roland Godin (Porineuf):: Since yesterday, Mr. Speaker, several hon. members have taken the floor in order to support Bill C-150. Among the numerous arguments set forth by them, the evolution of morality seems to have had the priority. In my opinion, there is something more to that since we often hear of people wishing to change their sex.
April 17. 1969

Criminal Code
But in this parliament we go beyond all that. While Canadian workers are paying taxes, while the unemployed are wondering about what tomorrow will bring, we are discussing the fate of the third sex.
Can an honest government allow itself to neglect the majority on behalf of a small group of perverts? Why is clause 7 of Bill C-150 now before us? Wherefrom came the representations to that effect?
Mr. Speaker, I have been here for three years and a half. During that period, I met various groups, among which were teamsters, farmers, workmen, even union representatives, which came and exerted pressure on the government and I would like to know which of them requested clause 7 now under study.
Was that clause requested by the electors of the Mount-Royal or the Ottawa-Carleton constituency? To how many persons did the government commit itself? Since minorities normally dispossessed, that is the poor, are being forgotten most of the time, would the request have originated from the minority of million-naires contributing to the electoral fund?
We recall that bill C-222, that is the bank act, was passed on March 21, 1967. We also remember that the electoral funds of both parties were very well provided for, following the passage of the bill.
Shortly afterwards, in February 1968, that is before the last election, came the passage of bill C-191, amending the Excise Tax Act.
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal party is not yet through with counting the moneys that were contributed to its election fund by the mining and lumber companies being assisted by the bill, which exempted them from paying the 10 per cent sales tax on the purchase of machinery and trucks.
Still more recently, was not the hon. member for Montmorency (Mr. Laflamme) offered a certain amount of money for sponsoring bill S-27 respecting the Quebec Savings Bank? That bill only purported to change the name Quebec Savings Bank into that of People's Bank.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I have Deen listening to the hon. member with some care, and I remind him that the amendment before the house at the moment deals1 with the deletion of clause 7 of Bill C-150. The debate must be restricted to the amendment itself, and I invite the hon. member to deal specifically with this amendment.


Roland Godin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am sorry I lost my temper.
In any case-


Jean-Charles Cantin: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.
The hon. member has made charges against the hon. member for Montmorency (Mr. Laflamme), who is reported as having been offered a certain amount of money. I think not only that he was out of order, but also that he made a false charge, and I want him to take full responsibility for it.
I am sure the hon. member for Montmorency (Mr. Laflamme) has not been blackmailed, has received nothing and has performed his duty by sponsoring a bill in the house.


Roland Godin: Mr. Speaker, I am taking due note of the remark made by the hon. member for Louis-Hebert (Mr. Cantin). The hon. member who is a lawyer, has understood very well what I said. I did not say that the hon. member had accepted anything, I said that an offer had been made to him. There is quite a difference.
Mr. Speaker, in any case, they persist in rejecting all amendments to this bid and we are asking ourselves questions as well as everybody across the country, especially with regard to clause 7 which deals with homosexuality.
That this clause should appear in the former bill introduced by the former Minister of Justice, a bachelor, and member for Mont-Royal, that was understandable. The people, who knew the hon. member as a comical character, a great joker, considered this part of the bill with a smile, believing it was a joke.
However, the peoples of Canada who thought it was all a joke, realize now that the clause had actually been presented with the firm intention of having it adopted. Under these circumstances, the peoples of Canada sympathise, as I do, with the present Minister of Justice. In fact, one wonders what advantages the hon. minister of Justice, representing Ottawa-Carleton, who is married and has, if I am correct, four children, could derive from inserting clause 7 in the present Bill C-150.
At all events, I ask those who support this clause, and who mostly are married men, whether their wives are in favour of their consenting adults stepping out. The peoples of Canada are dissatisfied, Mr. Speaker. It is not

April 17, 1969
Criminal Code
only in Creditiste ridings that constituents are writing to their M.P. In fact, we have received letters from all over Canada.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
I can declare that consciences agree on one point in Canada and even in constituencies whose representatives are Liberals, the reactions are alike.
I have even received a letter from the constituency of Chambly-Rouville. I would like to quote a few excerpts.
Richelieu, March 15, 1969. Mr. Roland Godin, M.P. for Portneuf.
Sir, I wish to write you a few words, first to commend you and your colleagues for the fine job that you are doing in the House of Commons in Ottawa-
The letter goes on in the same vein but, out of modesty, I will spare you part of it.
However, the man who signed the letter tells me:
I wrote to my member of parliament, Bernard Piion, telling him not to vote like a puppet-
He adds in brackets: $18,000 a year is quite a price to pay for a mere puppet. I continue:
I also wrote to the Prime Minister, Mr. Trudeau, and the Minister of Justice, Mr. Turner, asking them to leave the Liberal members free to vote according to their conscience and their faith, if they have not forgotten it.
Herewith copy of the letter I sent to the hon. Jean-Paul Deschatelets, Speaker of the Senate, asking him to assume his responsibilities.
Mr. Speaker, not only have the constituents of Chambly-Rouville lost confidence in their member of parliament but they now mistrust the Speaker of the other place, and I give you proof of that by reading the letter in question:
Chambly-Rouville, March 14, 1969
Hon. Jean-Paul Deschatelets,
Speaker of the Senate Parliament Buildings Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Sir,
Please allow me to express my opinion, as well as that of the people of our beautiful county of Chambly-Rouville. And as a taxpayer of all kinds of taxes and surtaxes, direct and indirect as the case may be, I make this my duty. Our M.P., who represents us all in Ottawa, appears to have become a nothing, a yes-man, a lunkhead and a fink, since he was elected and sent in Ottawa to defend our interests and get acquainted with the legislation put before the House of Commons, so that those that are passed will be for the best interest of the people of this county who are honest, righteous and worthy of their beliefs. Such laws must also protect morals, the unwritten law and the ten Commandments written on the tables of the Law, made of stone; they will remain there

for all time. 1 do not think that a government, a Member of Parliament or a Minister of Justice should be allowed to pass a law that would abolish the Lord's Commandments.
Mr. Speaker of the Senate, it is beyond understanding that intelligent men like Mr. Pierre Elliott Trudeau, who has said, as I read in the papers, that he was baptized and was practicing his religion, would conceive in 1968, when he was Minister of Justice, the notorious omnibus bill, hateful and degrading. And that he would put it in the hands of the present minister, Mr. John Turner, to have it baptized in parliament, where our M.P.'s are the godfathers and godmothers of the people of Canada-
And here again, Mr. Speaker, this man goes on to say that a Gallup poll has shown that 92 per cent of the Canadian people are believers, and then he states that members of the Senate will never forget that poll. And he goes on to say:
To legalize homosexuality between adults means to popularize it wilfully, between adults as well as between adults and young people, as it will not be practical to check it, meaning that policemen have no right to intervene in such cases.
To vote for this hateful and degrading bill out of false principles, is to open the door wide to other legislation contrary to the indefeasible rights of man.
This letter bears the initials of a constituent of Chambly-Rouville.
I apologize for quoting this letter before the Hon. Jean-Paul Deschatelets sent us a copy.
In short, Mr. Speaker, under clause 7, we are simply being asked to legalize male prostitution. How did the great and noble Liberal party come to be so lenient towards unnatural acts, for it is not by granting all freedom to inverts that the evil will be checked. And to repeat that the State has no business in bedrooms is not very serious, when the crime which is being committed there endangers a whole civilization.
Since we are told again and again that the homosexual is ill, the State should act accordingly. And before accepting the money of the dear boys for the electoral fund, the Liberal party through its Minister of National Health and Welfare should have suggested adequate care.
An intelligent man, the secretary of the province of Quebec, Mr. Yves Gabias, a lawyer, and a citizen of Trois-Rivieres gave us his impressions during the fall in 1967, and I quote an article published in L'Action in December 1967:
The provincial secretary, Yves Gabias, who is also the member for Trois-Rivieres, has protested, along with many others, against some clauses of Bill C-195-[DOT]
April 17, 1969

It will be recalled that, at the time, the measure was known as Bill C-195.
-or the bill amending the Criminal Code, introduced last week in the Commons by the Minister of Justice, Mr. Pierre Elliott Trudeau.
In Mr. Gabias' opinion, the proposed amendments concerning abortion and homosexuality are inacceptable. Consequently, he wishes that the Canadian people and the public bodies would exert pressures in order to oblige the federal government to take these clauses out of the bill.
"Every time a people has legalized homosexuality, such action has led to pure and simple decay," he commented. In so doing, the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres emphasizes the fact that he speaks as a Quebec citizen and as the father of a family.
Therefore, he is taking a logical approach without forgetting that he is a public figure, a politician, a member of a provincial government. But what he seems to be considering in particular, and which is very important, is the fact that a legislator in all matters must act logically as a responsible family head.
From the strict viewpoint of the drafting of the text, the matter of homosexuality, that is clause 7, is unacceptable. At the present time, under the legislation anyone who commits buggery or bestiality is liable to imprisonment for 14 years and anyone who commits an act of gross indecency with another person to a five-year imprisonment. How could two consenting persons over 21 years of age commit these acts and not be liable to criminal charges whereas other persons. Also, over 21 and also consenting could be heavily penalized for having committed similar acts whenever there were more than two persons participating? Does a crime cease to be a crime on the ground it was committed by one or two persons only? Shall we say that homosexuals are sick people who should be cured rather than punished? In that case, are not those who practise this vice in a group also sick persons?
And this is signed by Roger Bruneau who concludes:
In brief we prefer the logic of Mr. Yves Gabias and we agree with him that the Canadian citizens and public institutions should exert on the federal government pressures strong enough to compel it to remove from the bill clauses 7	, dealing with
homosexuality.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, let us grant such permission only to 21 year-old adults and tomorrow we shall witness demonstrations organized by the 17 and 18 year-old youth. Holland has recently given proof there is some truth in this.
Dutch homosexuals demonstrate-
This is from a recent issue of a Quebec newspaper.
About a hundred homosexuals and lesbians put up a noisy demonstration yesterday in front of the Dutch parliament to protest against a law of the country making sexual relations between adults of the same sex liable to four years in prison.
Criminal Code
According to the demonstrators, this legislation is inhuman, discriminatory, and inconsistent since it allows homosexual relations between adults on the one hand and between minors of 16 years old at least on the other hand while forbidding it between both of these groups. Sexual relations between an adult and a consenting girl of at least sixteen are also permitted.
This implies, claim the homosexuals, that a man of 70 is free to give vent to his passions with a consenting adolescent... with the blessing of the government.
And note this, Mr. Speaker,
The supporters of the third sex distributed to the members of Parliament small candy hearts bearing slogans such as: "love", "sweet kisses", etc.
Mr. Speaker, homosexuals are said to be sick people; I feel that those sick people know how to do things very well.
We now ask: how is it that the British parliament has already passed a similar bill? How is it that the Canadian government is about to do the same? The Canadian Intelligence Service gives us an explanation in the Supplement to Bulletin No. 7 dated April 1968, and I quote:
Canadian justice is rebuilding its foundations.
Scientific humanism is replacing the gospel as the foundation of Canadian law.
First reading has just been given in the Commons to an omnibus bill containing various measures intended to "modernize" the Canadian Criminal Code. This bill introduced by Minister of Justice Trudeau contains, among others, two measures the first of which would facilitate abortion by increasing the number of grounds ... and the second would legalize homosexuality between adults. And, on the other hand, not among future plans but among the achievements-
-were other plans.
Again in the same article, and I quote:
-Peter Newman, correspondent of the Toronto Star in Ottawa, in his article of April 25, 1967, made this comment about Mr. Trudeau:
"He (Mr. Trudeau) also keeps in mind certain aspects of a creative implementation of the law. He says the Department of Justice should be considered more and more as a body designed to plan the society of tomorrow, and not only as a legal adviser to the government-"
Let us take notice of that idea of a creative law and of a Department of Justice directed more and more towards the planning of the society of tomorrow. We find here the idea that a Department of Justice does not exist above all to enforce law and maintain order but to use the law so as to change and rebuild social order. Thus the law, which was the framework of order, becomes an instrument of revolution.
We find here once again the idea of a new basis for the law, made up of changing sociological theories and a morality determined by public opinion. Such a concept destroys the very basis of western civilization, such basis, which has its

April 17, 1969'
Criminal Code
roots in the Bible, being that man is related to God, that he is responsible before God for his actions and his life, and that he should be guided not by man-made laws but by God's commandments-
The implications of this new direction to be given to Canadian law cannot be overstressed, because it disregards its roots which were the Holy Scriptures to embrace "humanitarian" views.
Norman St. John-Stevas, in his important book La Vie, la Mort et la Loi has shown that it is in the name of this new morality, of this new god of science, that Christians are asked today to approve the legalization of homosexuality, prostitution, suicide, etc.
All those acts are forbidden by existing Christian laws. That such radical changes could thus be proposed reveal the deep moral revolution which has shaken Anglo-Saxon democracies, brought about mostly by the advocates of the "new morality" and the worshippers of the new god of science, who have succeeded in invading our institutions, universities, public schools, churches, communication media of press, radio and television, without overlooking our political parties.
Any change must at least seem justified. Those so-called reformists contend that God is dead, that there is no moral law of divine origin, and that therefore perversion and crime not only have equal rights with Christian morality, but actually have superior rights; which the reformists explain by claiming that Christian morality violate the right of peoples of the post-Christian era to do as they please.
This new set of morals, based on a humanist prejudice of complete independence in relation to God and His moral law, has been advocated in several documents published recently by modern humanists: the Kinsey report, for instance, which encouraged sexual freedom-
-the new morality of scientific humanists is about to become the common measure of courts of justice-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to inform the hon. member that his time is up.


Roland Godin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to go on for two more minutes.


Mr. Speaker:: Order! The hon. member's time has expired.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise to take part in this debate for only a few minutes. I do so because I regret very deeply the turn it has taken and the kind of perspective that has been put upon clause 7 of Bill C-150. Frankly, I think that perspective is all wrong. One would get the impression, listening to many of the speeches that have been made on clause 7, that what it proposes to do is promote homosexuality and other sexual deviations.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: No, I do not think that is true.


Stanley Howard Knowles: say that this is the impression one gets.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Maybe; but I do not think, that is true.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My
hon. friend is saying that is not the purpose of the bill?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I say that is not true as far as the debate is concerned. I do not think that is right.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is entitled to his opinion, though it would be better if he expressed it from his own seat.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Yes, I agree with that.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has the floor.


Stanley Howard Knowles: express the opinion, as one who has listened to the debate throughout, that this is what it sounds like. I would like to state what I think is the purpose of clause 7. I put it very simply-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: This is pretty naive.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My
hon. friend may say it is naive if he wants, but 1 have a right to state it in all its naivety. Sections 147, 148 and 149 of the Criminal Code are not being deleted or changed. The law against various kinds of indecency and abnormality will remain. All we are doing by clause 7 is adding another section to the Criminal Code thait is of a relieving nature. It will relieve the people who, in the view of the majority of us, are ill from the possibility of being tarred as criminals.
Mr. Speaker, I think that is the kind of approach society ought to take toward homosexuals and people who indulge in some of these sexual variations, particularly when they are over 21 years of age. There seems to be a great deal of concern because there is a line drawn at 21. I am glad the line is drawn. This means we are still doing our best to prevent the spread of sexual irregularities. It means we are still doing our best to avoid the propagation of homosexuality; the force of the law is against this sort of thing. But at the same time we are saying that when people are adults, if they have a form of illness that expresses iteslf in this way, we ought not to attach to them the stigma of being criminals.
April 17. 1969

Criminal Code


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Would the hon. member this report to prove that the bill to legalize permit a question?	homosexuality could be valid.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: 
Stanley Howard Knowles: thank my hon. friend for his question, and since I did not know the answer I thank him for giving it to me. But the point I am trying to make, despite the interruptions of my genial friend, still stands that the perspective that has been created yesterday and today is all wrong and is not in keeping w.th the real intent of clause 7. It is because of its real intent, namely to provide a relieving clause for people who are ill, that some of us are not only prepared to support it but are glad that it has been brought in.
One of the other things that has bothered me during the course of the debate, and perhaps has provoked me to get to my feet, has been the constant appeal to religion as though some of the interpretations of religion which we have been given are the Anal answer. It is not often in this house that I make a formal reference to any religious position, but I would like to say just this, that if true religion means anything it means compassion, it means understanding, it means concern for people, especially people who are ill. That is the objective of clause 7. I think this house should support it and reject the amendment that would seek to strike it out.


Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure to address again the hon. members and to tell them that I support the amendment to delete clause 7 of the bill now under consideration.
I should like first to call the attention of the house to an excerpt of a report presented by a commission under the chairmanship of Sir John Wolfenden of the United Kingdom. These 12 men and 3 women were asked to study the law and the customs with regard to offences concerning homosexuality and the treatment of persons convicted by the tribunals of such offences.
I want to point out that the government, accord ng to its press release, relied upon
Here is what Sir John Wolfenden wrote and I quote:
With regard to the fact that a man who engages into homosexual acts with another man might want to do the same with young boys, the Commission reached the following conclusion:
In short, the evidence we heard suggests that the fear that doing away with the illegality of homosexuality between adults would lead to similar acts with young boys does not give sufficient ground to classify as punishable offences homosexual acts committed between adults, and in private, and the Commission suggests that such a change in the legislation is more likely to protect the young boys rather than expose them to danger.
It is certainly sheer nonsense to pretend that taking away completely from the Criminal Code the offence attached to homosexuality will not lead homosexuals to commit similar acts with boys under 21.
Just like the previous speaker, I feel that homosexuals are sick people and that sometimes they are unable to control their sexual impulse not only towards adults but also towards adolescents.
In my opinion, the passing of that clause would mean that young people would be continually threatened by the unbridled instincts of those sexual perverts.
I repeat that homosexuality is an illness and its legalization will not contribute to the progress of society but to its decadence because it can undermine the family, the cell of our Canadian society.
That same committee adds that homosexuality does not cause more harm to the family than adultery. That may be but, even so, the prevention or cure of such an illness would still be justified.
It is still more ridiculous to see how this government behaves while relying on nothing. I say while relying on nothing because there is not a single minister who can tell us which public or private associations have made representations to have that section included in the bill now before us. If, by chance, homosexuals made such representations, they would have to be ignored for, in my opinion, homosexuality is a psychological illness.
The government presents this bill as a form of progress while, it is a degrading measure.
According to the reports submitted to the committee, the United Kingdom, recently

April 17, 1969
Criminal Code
passed an act the provisions of which are the following, and I quote:
Notwithstanding any provision of the statutes or of the common law, but subject to the provisions of the following section, an act of homosexuality committed in private is not an offence providing that the people concerned consent to it and are at least 21 years of age.
2. An act that would be otherwise considered, for the purpose of this act, as committed in private, will not be considered so if it is committed:
(a)	When more than two persons share in it or are present while it is being committed; or
(b)	In lavatories where the public is admitted or authorized to enter on paying a charge, or otherwise.
No proceedings shall be filed, except by the director of public proceedings or with his consent, against any man for a buggery offence with another man or for indecency with another man, for an attempt to commit either of those offences or for having helped, encouraged, advised, prompted or ordered its perpetration when one of those two men was, at the moment of its perpetration, less than 21 years of age. However, this section does not preclude the arrest of a person or the issue of a warrant against that person for such an offence, nor the provisional detention or releasing on bail of a person charged with such an offence.
Mr. Speaker, I do not think that homosexuals will purposely put themselves on public display when they wish to have intercourse with each other. This is why I say that the assertion which was made in England is completely and basically wrong. It is then useless for the government to take it into account because he should rather deal exclusively with laws concerning indecent assaults and gross indecencies.
How is it possible to reconcile the seriousness of the government with the rationale of section 7 of the bill, if it ascribes importance to details and ignores the unhappy experience of the nations that have legalized homosexuality?
Homosexuality is an evil and its legalization means contagion among people who are young or not so young. I speak of the people of 18 or 17 and even of those who are younger. Let us not be surprised, if this bill is ever adopted, of the increase of cases like the one of Leopold Dion; four boys were the innocent victims of this sex maniac.
The evil already exists. We must curb it rather than spread it. To do this, the government should create a system of education for adults, so that they can prevent homosexuality by educating the young.
Besides, I advocate the creation of free psychiatric hospitals for homosexuals rather than the adoption of such ridiculous bills.
IMr. Beaudoin.]
One does not build a strong country upon degradation as the present government tries to do, but rather on the dignity of and on the respect for human beings.
This afternoon, the hon. minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) said he did not agree with the argument of the members who claim that immorality means illegality from the legal point of view.
I think it is immoral to permit homosexuality under certain conditions, as provided by section 7 of the bill. What should remain illegal should even have a penalty attached to it.
For all those reasons, I ask the government to remove this section 7 from bill C-150, and I support the amendment under study.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker-


An hon. Members:: He has already spoken.


André-Gilles Fortin: I am glad to be able to participate in this debate even if some government members wonder whether I have already done so. I do hope my hon. colleagues do not dread me that much.
Mr. Speaker I consider it a duty-


Jean-Charles Cantin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I am not quite sure but I wonder whether the hon. member has not already spoken on the same subject. It is the only question I have to ask him.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, we might perhaps adjourn and try to find out whether I did actually speak or not.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I am advised that the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) has not spoken on this subject.


André-Gilles Fortin: Thank you Mr. Speaker. I realize you are paying closer attention to the debate than the hon. member for Louis-Hebert (Mr. Cantin).
Mr. Speaker, it is my duty to participate in the present debate which aims at striking out of the Criminal Code clause 7 which has, so far, caused much ink to flow and given birth to many comments, right or wrong but, anyhow, interesting. Nevertheless, I feel, Mr. April 17, 1969

Speaker, that the longer we debate, the more we drift away from the subject.
I notice, Mr. Speaker, that so far, in most cases, a basic aspect has been overlooked: that of the Canadian youth. Let us think of it lest we have to deplore tomorrow the steps taken today.
Mr. Speaker, there is in the April issue of The Canadian Family, a magazine edited in Ottawa by the Canadian Family Conference, a good article by Frederick Elgin. I would like, Mr. Speaker, to draw the attention of the house on the subject for it is of the utmost importance. Before passing or rejecting this motion, it is every member's duty, in my opinion, to think of the Canadian youth. Reading this article, Mr. Speaker, is illuminating. We tend too often to forget, for instance, that in 1951 there were 4.9 million young people under 18 years of age in Canada who tomorrow will have become adults and will be responsible for our society.
By 1961, that population had increased. The number of young people had grown to
7,100,000.	That is an unbelievable, fantastic increase of 45 per cent.
The Canadian people are growing ever younger. The average age of Canadians is decreasing. Let us now look at 18 to 24 year olds. From 1951 to 1961, the rate of increase of that sector of the population was 13 per cent.
In other words, Mr. Speaker, the bill we are about to pass or defeat, depending on the seriousness of our principles and our wish to pass laws that are really useful, will have more bearing on the young people of Canada, students and workers, than on the older people, since more and more, and especially since 1951, the rate of growth of the Canadian population between 18 and 24 years, and under 18, has increased constantly.
That is to say, Mr. Speaker, that to my mind it is criminal to set the minimum age at 21 in clause 7 of the bill now before us.
I say, Mr. Speaker, that our young people are concerned. Several persons, several members, will say, especially on the government side: If we go by the introductory speech of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) in the house, this bill will remove from the Criminal Code sections 147, 148 and 149 that deal with homosexuality or sexual relations between two consenting persons of the same sex, and it will have no bearing, directly or indirectly on our young people.
Mr. Speaker, if under the pretext of making the law more humane and adapting the
Criminal Code
Criminal Code to a pluralistic society, more freedom must be given to the human being, we commit the crime of throwing our young people, our Canadian youth into a society that does not generally respect love, one's fellowman, the human being, and the right of the individual, to fulfill himself according to his own principles.
However, if we prevent those young people from growing up freely according to their skills, abilities and principles-for they have them-instead of making the Criminal Code more human, we will have committed the greatest crime in the century, since we will have abolished all that could make of them the honest and serious leaders of tomorrow.
When the minister states that the bill will have no repercussions on people, I would like to remind him that the present government has already held an inquiry on juvenile delinquency in Canada. I have here a very interesting book which was published under the auspices of the Department of Justice.
One can find a mine of information therein. This is how is defined the expression "juvenile delinquent" from a legal standpoint, and I quote:
Any child who violates any provision of the Criminal Code or any Dominion or provincial statute, or any by-law or ordinance of any municipality, or is guilty of sexual immorality or any similar form of vice.
In other words, Mr. Speaker, this legal definition of the expression "juvenile delinquent" classifies as a vice any sexual deviation or immorality. Youths are condemned, they are put in jail, they are sent to reformatories, they are even prevented from getting a good start in life. They are not given all available opportunities. According to which criteria are they condemned?
It deals with sexual immorality or any similar form of vice. One can find it again on page 8 of that document published in 1965, under the auspices of the Department of Justice.
I hope that the minister read it. Mr. Speaker, some people rationalize their indictment against youths who maybe did not get all required opportunities to find their niche in society. Everything is done to prevent those youths from finding their place in society; people brandish the criteria of sexual immorality or any similar form of vice.
Is there something more illogical, more inhuman and more stupid than that, Mr. COMMONS DEBATES
April 17. 1969
Criminal Code
Speaker? However, they want to allow youths 21 and more, to do the same acts that are forbidden in the case of younger ones: They are condemned and their life is wrecked.
I want to rise against this ridiculous situation and say to the minister, that if he deletes from the Criminal Code sections 147, 148 and 149, without passing intelligent legislation giving our young people the chance not to be accused in such situations, I say that he himself is guilty of a crime, and somebody should blow him up with a bomb, and I approve young people fighting with guns, if our society does not enact intelligent laws to promote development of the human being.
I think this is a serious situation. Everybody in this house is against protest, everyone is against young people getting together and holding demonstrations as they did at McGill University. Everybody is afraid, but nobody is taking his responsibility. We are ready to condone sexual acts between young people of the same sex-male or female- as long as it is in private, and for the same acts, young people, our children, are convicted and their life is wrecked. Some hon. members will say that this is not true. I would like them to read the statistics found in this same book. We have been blind ever since this debate started.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
Do you know that 15,204 juvenile delinquents were not only accused but convicted in 1957 and 16,903 in 1958? There are more and more every year. In 1960, 18,706; in 1961, 19,659. These statistics are for 1961, the latest available.
At this rate of increase, we can guess what the number is now. The majority of these young people have no jobs. Instead of legislating to help them, we contribute to their delinquency while at the same time we organize our society according to a supposed evolution that makes it necessary to adapt ourselves to a pluralistic society, under the pretext that we must follow the advice of our good mother-in-law, England.
I heard members ask the minister where this bill originated? Can he tell us whether he received representations? In my opinion, the answer is quite simple and I will take the liberty to tell it to the house, by quoting the Prime Minister at the time he was Minister of Justice. I could say the same thing of the present Minister of Justice, because he has the same opinion. He is unable to break new ground, to adapt himself to the Canadian turn

of mind. He has to take his ideas from outside, from the United Kingdom. I quote: Considerations which led to the introduction of these amendments in parliament are well defined in the following excerpt from the report of the committee set up in the United Kingdom-
In Canada, Mr. Speaker, the opinion of the Canadian people was not sought. Even if the Canadian opinion is against this bill, they don't care a hang. They prefer to follow the opinions of the United Kingdom. I have them here. The Prime Minister said, and I quote: -are well defined in the following excerpt of the report of the committee set up in the United Kingdom under the chairmanship of Sir John Wolfenden. They led to the passage of a similar legislation by the United Kingdom parliament last July.
That is all what we can think of in Canada! Mr. Speaker, I do not want to waste my time any further, but I think that is important. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) goes even farther than his predecessor. The former Minister of Justice decided that if Sir John Wolfenden had studied the question, it made sense. We, in Canada, are backward people; so he thought we should just follow suit.
But the hon. Minister of Justice tells him: It might be very interesting. We are going to investigate further and find out whether this is really desirable. I am quoting his introductory speech which, and you will see that it is really something.
Mr. Speaker, this situation so revolts me that I would willingly give 25c. to the hon. Minister of Justice and ask him to go and play in the traffic. The hon. Minister of Justice said-I am quoting:
A committee made up of twelve men and three women headed by Sir John Wolfenden, who had been appointed in the United Kingdom to study the law and the practice regarding homosexual offences and the treatment meted out to people found guilty by the courts of such criminal acts-
Let us imagine that committee! Do you want to know how this committee made its study in the United Kingdom, how many Canadians they consulted and how they studied the situation in Canada? The minister tells and I quote:
The committee took 32 days-
-neither 33, nor 31, nor 32, the minister kept a count-
-to examine witnesses and it met on 30 other days.
Eventually, they adopted that legislation. Today we, Canadians, are incapable of using
April 17, 1969

our imagination, of inventing or doing anything, without looking at what our neighbour is doing, because we are not controlling anything.
Mr. Speaker, I am now returning to the serious problem of homosexuals of whom, I understand, there are many in Canada. As far as I am concerned, I have not received any request from Canadians to support this legislation, but I have received hundreds of letters asking that we oppose it. Most people are themselves against it. Can the minister sincerely tell us that the Canadian people is in favour of this clause? He is unable to say so, unless he betrays himself. Does he want me to give him some examples of people who are against it? I have here almost 500 letters that I shall send him; they are signed by people from Victoriaville, who may not possess the qualifications to become Prime Minister or Minister of Justice, but who have enough conscience and common sense to think about tomorrow's society, although it may be a pluralist one, and to realize they still must hold on certain principles.
I shall, therefore, send the minister these letters and ask him to read them, because it is of the outmost importance. Perhaps he will be unable to go to sleep tonight, which would be that much gained.
Mr. Speaker, homosexuality is an illness, not a crime nor a vice. It could become so through abuse or habit, but then it would become a chronic illness. Nevertheless, it remains an illness, perhaps more difficult to cure than an ordinary one, but it can be treated. The greatest specialists recognize it.
Although I am not very old, Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity and the chance to militate for 4 years in an organization called l'Association Lacordaire. I have discovered in this organization some fantastic things from a human point of view. I
I had always been taught, like everyone else, all kinds of prejudices against alcoholics. Even governments, federal and provincial, were taxing alcoholics of being vicious, degraded, heartless people, who were not taking care of their family. And that went on until experts wondered why those people drank too much. Finally, it was discovered that all alcoholics were not vicious or debased or criminal but were in fact sick, and likely to be rehabilitated, for instance, through the Domremy clinics, the Alcoholics Anonymous or other channels. Rehabilitation is possible
Criminal Code
and today anybody will recognize that an alcoholic is not a degraded but a sick person that can be treated.
Mr. Speaker, we have known in the past prohibition laws. Public opinion has envolved, we now live in a pluralistic society and it is agreed that the human being deserves respect.
Instead of broadening the laws, instead of condemning such people, the governments more and more take positive measures to have them treated. Today, it is possible to recuperate the sick people that the alcoholics are, to return the father or the mother to their family, to give a start in life to the young, even if previously they have made an immoderate use of liquor-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order! Order! I must interrupt the hon. member since his time has expired.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I would have a few more remarks to make.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order! The hon. member cannot carry on unless he has unanimous consent from the house.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)

Has the hon. member the unanimous agreement of the house to continue his remarks?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleagues for their kindness.
I apologize if I should hurt some of them occasionally, but I find such a situation revolting. I should like also to avoid making too many enemies however, I wish they would consider seriously the position of young people in that respect.
It is not enough to enact laws or to broaden them if tomorrow we have to face a more serious problem. It seems to me that we have so many important laws that we could avoid getting into such a predicament! Why not speak out in a positive way? Why not try and put the Canadian family in its true place? Why not help the Canadian family to bloom instead of destroying it?
Love, Mr. Speaker, has not been created for two men or two women. It has been created for man and woman. It has been so through all times. It is not, as an hon. member said jokingly, because morals were

April 17, 1969
Criminal Code
depraved at the time of the Romans that they should be the same today. In that case, Mr. Speaker, we should perhaps go back to the time of the Romans and to their oared boats, which could incite us to set up a Canadian merchant marine. If we were just as logical in all fields!
Mr. Speaker, I would have so many things to say in that connection. In view of such factors as urbanization, industrialization, renewal of our society, problems in large cities, and since there is more and more solidarity among young people, since they want more and more to take their place in this society and seek to reach ideals to carry out their projects, in short, in view of the great willingness shown in Canada, why should we pass legislation which, on the grounds of humanism, is against the human being?
Let us then take the same position we took with regards to alcoholism to promote the self-fulfilment of the human being.
The prime minister himself stated in his speech:
Except if it is necessary to safeguard public order or the security of the human being.
Mr. Speaker, I think that the prime minister was then opening the door to amendments and inviting us to give our views. Let us be logical and get to the basic issues. Many young members have been elected in this house. I had the pleasure to appreciate the work done by the hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria (Mr. Corbin) to whom I want to pay tribute. He said earlier, in reply to the hon. member for Sainte-Marie (Mr. Valade) that he was free. He is free because he is young in spirit and keeps away from beaten paths.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to stand together and to follow his example.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. The hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis) rises on a point of order.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: I think that the time allotted to the hon. member has expired, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. The house has given unanimous consent earlier to the hon. member.


André-Gilles Fortin: I thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I think that we would benefit from a serious, human and positive consideration of that
CMr. Fortin.]
matter, and I hope that the minister will take it into consideration.
Just as we worked for the alcoholics' rehabilitation, we must try to rehabilitate the homosexuals since they have a disease, a sexual deviation. We must do something useful.
That is why, in my opinion, the proposal of the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Beaudoin) is most worthwhile and should be supported by the greatest possible number of parliamentarians. Let us strike out that provision from the Criminal Code and set up some clinics to look after those sick people.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, the hon. member for Ottawa West on a poinl of order.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Mr. Speaker, I believe the time of the hon. member has expired.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Perhaps the hon. member for Ottawa West was not here when the house gave its unanimous consent to the hon. member to carry on his remarks.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: I do not consent, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: The
hon. member's objection was not noted originally. The hon. member had unanimous consent. The hon. member for Lotbiniere.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)


André-Gilles Fortin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I promise the honourable member for Ottawa West that I will not misuse the time allotted to him or impose upon his kindness. I thank him for his courtesy.
Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to speak at length.
I wanted to make the views of youth known. I would like the minister to consider what I said about the conviction of young people, on charges of immoral sexual acts or similar kinds of vices, while a legislation is supposed to be passed, in order to legalize such acts committed by older persons.
Mr. Speaker, since the population is getting younger, it is extremely important to consider the matter and think it over seriously.
Before concluding my remarks, I wish to thank the members who had the patience to
April 17. 1969

listen to me and I hope, Mr. Speaker, that we will be brave enough to take our responsibilities, so as not to fear those who tomorrow will assume them and will be sitting in this house.


Jean-Charles Cantin: Would the hon. member allow just one question?


André-Gilles Fortin: With pleasure, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. I must remind the house that the time of the kon. member has expired and unanimous consent is required to allow the parliamentary secretary to ask his question. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Jean-Charles Cantin: Does the hon. member finally admit that homosexuals are not criminals? If I am not mistaken, that is what he has just said.


André-Gilles Fortin: Exactly. They are not criminals, they are ill.


Jean-Charles Cantin: Then, is it not precisely the intent of the proposed amendment that they no longer be regarded as criminals, except when the protection of youth is involved?


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I agree with that. I am against taking those provisions out of the Criminal Code if, at the same time, nothing positive is done to help those people. Otherwise, it would be as if I were against red lights and that each time I ran past one, I would say to the person who would stop me: My friend, I am not sick, and I would go on my way.
Mr. Speaker, I am in favour of abolishing this provision of the Criminal Code. But at the same time, it is important to do something concrete, otherwise it is not possible to agree logically.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: The
score is now 2-0 for Boston. Is the house ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Gérard Laprise: That Bill C-150, an Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Parole Act, the Penitentiary Act, the Prisons and Reformatories Act, and to make certain consequential amendments to the Combines Investigation Act, the Customs Tariff and the National Defence Act, be amended by deleting therefrom clause 7.
Criminal Code


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Is it the
pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?


Stanley Howard Knowles: No.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, if I understood the remarks of the Speaker at the beginning of the debate yesterday, I think it was agreed that amendments Nos. 3 and 4 would be discussed and voted on at the same time. For those reasons, Mr. Chairman, I wonder if it would not be appropriate that amendment No. 4 I proposed be read immediately.


An hon. Member:: It is the same thing. [English]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: I think It was the intention to put the question on the first amendment and if it were negatived, that would dispose of the two amendments. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said amendment?


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: All
those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: In my
opinion, the nays have it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On
a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Was it not understood from the chair that the vote, if called would be deferred?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I don't think that's right.


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


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
It has been proposed that the vote be deferred and I note that there are three further amendments on clause 7.

April 17. 1969
Criminal Code
Then, should it happen that this amendment on which the vote is being deferred were carried, which would mean that clause 7 would be struck off Bill C-150, I think that amendments 6, 7 and 8 would no longer serve any purpose.
I wonder why amendments Nos. 3 and 4 should not be voted on and then we could decide whether amendments Nos. 6, 7 and 8 have to be discussed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. I think it was agreed yesterday that votes would be deferred and taken when the study of clauses 1 to 11 is completed.
Should amendment No. 3 be voted down, amendment No. 4 would be dropped by the same token. We shall now proceed with amendment No. 6.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)


Gérard Laprise: That Bill C-150, an Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Parole Act, the Penitentiary Act, the Prisons and Reformatory Act and to make certain consequential amendments to the Combines Investigation Act, the Customs Tariff and the National Defence Act, be amended by deleting in clause 7 paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of the proposed new section 149A.


John Napier Turner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. With the greatest of respect, I think the house failed to reach agreement on the procedure yesterday. There would be no objection on this side if a vote were called on these two particular amendments at the moment. I admit that you have a discretion within the rule to defer division under rule 75(11). I think the agreement was not achieved, so it is within your discretion. We, on the government side, of the house would be quite willing to have the vote called on these two particular amendments now.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: I am
informed that the Speaker has deferred the vote, as he has the right and privilege to do, according to rule 75(11).


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: On a point of order. I would like to ask you for direction. Do I take it the chair is deferring the vote on these 11 amendments until we complete this phase of the bill? I think we should have some direction in this regard. We have to know where we are going.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: It is the
understanding of the chair that the vote will

be taken after the completion of the study of amendments 1 to 11. The vote will be taken at the end of the consideration of amendment number 11, as mentioned yesterday by Mr. Speaker.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: With the greatest of respect I agree that is good practice, but that was not the ruling. Now, it has been made clear and we at least know where we are going.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: We are
now considering amendment No. 6.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: The
hon. member for Lotbiniere rises on a point of order.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I understand that we will vote tomorrow on amendments Nos. 1 to 11 taken together. Is that correct?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: The
Chair does not know at present whether amendments 1 to 11 will be voted on tomorrow. What has been mentioned and agreed upon yesterday is that the question will be put once the house has considered amendments 1 to 11 inclusive. When amendment 11 has been disposed of, the vote will be taken on the amendments.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I agree with what you are saying and I agree that this is what was understood yesterday, but is there not one point that should be made clear, namely, that after we have disposed of amendments Nos. 1 to 11 we will take the votes all right but only on those amendments on which votes have been called by the standing at least five members?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: That is correct.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, we realize to what extent the new standing orders adopted on December 20th last can give rise to complications. Indeed we have found it difficult to know exactly at what stage we are.
Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, I feel somewhat puzzled tonight to move this amendment, which bears No. 11 in the order paper, to the effect that Bill C-150 be amended by deleting
April 17, 1969
in clause 7 of the bill paragraph (b) of subsection (1) in the proposed new section 149A.
Had the house decided tonight to delete clause 7 from Bill C-150, relating to "gross indecency" or more precisely "homosexuality", the amendment which I am proposing now would no longer be needed, as well as the two following ones. However, one does not know where we stand as to the amendment which we have been discussing these last few days.
That is why, I am somewhat embarrassed in presenting this amendment tonight. When I drafted the amendment, my purpose was to amend clause 7 in the event that my amendment would be refused. The government extends the legislation on homosexuality, and as we must accept this, we should make the best of it. That is why amendments are presented, so that the clause may do the least harm possible to our society. Of course, if the clause were deleted, there would be no problem.
In deleting clause 7(l)(b) of the new section 149A, I have attempted to limit the application of the latter to acts, that may be considered indecent or criminal by others, committed between consenting spouses, even in private.
So, Mr. Speaker, section 149A as it appears in clause 7 will no doubt, as has been mentioned in the last two days, have some possible unfortunate consequences. The hon. members who have spoken in favour of the amendment are not the only ones who entertain such fears. From all parts of the country, and not only from Quebec, various organizations have provided us with the conclusions of investigations they have carried out and have told us not only of their opposition to these changes to the Criminal Code but also of the valid grounds on which they base such opposition.
My purpose in presenting this amendment was to limit the unfortunate consequences of this new section 149A that the government intends to insert in the Criminal Code.
I do not intend to repeat what I have said about the previous amendment, nor to go into any detail, nor to repeat what others have said during the last two days, because I believe that the case has been made.
We should not lose sight of the possible consequences of the application of such a section to certain categories of persons.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it ten o'clock?
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion [English]



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, I intend to speak briefly, but I think what I have to say is a matter of some considerable importance to all hon. members of the house, even those unlucky enough to be on the other side. It concerns public housing and urban renewal. Before I proceed, may I first pay tribute to a person who is leaving the ranks of parliament tomorrow. Mr. Walter Tedman, who has been a very faithful member of the staff of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) and who now goes on to business enterprise in Toronto.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Jardine McCleave: I hope I can fit him into this debate without getting myself hopelessly out of order, because he has been very diligent in the field of housing. The purpose of the question, and of my appearance here tonight, is with regard to the one field in which I think the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hellyer), who reports to the house for C.M.H.C., has a particular failing. I refer to public housing, housing of some sort for the poor or lower income people of Canada.
As far back as March 25 in this session, I asked him about his intentions with regard to bringing in what he called new regulations regarding an amended and improved form of public housing. That question arose out of the fact that in his task force report he had said the criteria we had used in the past were not acceptable to him sociologically, economically or otherwise. On March 25, as recorded at page 7066 of Hansard, the minister said:
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)
I have indicated in discussion with some of the provinces and with some representatives of the municipalities that within a few days I would hope to be in a position to give them, in guideline form, the criteria which will be applied in making judgments in respect of these matters.
Then, I asked the minister:
May I ask the Minister whether this would be in written form, so that every province and municipality could share the wealth.

7676	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
The minister replied:
Yes, Mr. Speaker, in both French and English-
That was March 25. The answer was to be' given within a few days in written form. On March 31 the questions1 were resumed by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maolnnis) and the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander). Then again, we raised the matter on April 14. The hon. member for Hamilton West homed in on the subject by asking:
Also, while the Prime Minister is on his feet will he advise the house whether the minister-
That is, the Minister of Transport.
-in fact made the junket he was supposed to make in the week after Easter with regard to urban renewal.
Then again on the next day, April 15, further questions were asked by the hon. member for Hamilton West and myself with regard to the matter. As recorded at page 7519 of Hansard the minister replied:
I intend to visit Vancouver and Calgary in the next two days and, hopefully, will then be in a position to issue some guidelines within a matter of a few days.
Then, as recorded at the bottom of the column, I said:
I should like to ask the minister when he will be in a position to lay down the sociological and other guidelines that he announced within a few days before we recessed for Easter would be laid down.
The minister replied:
Next week, Mr. Speaker, if not this week.
My only purpose in rising to my feet this evening is to say, as I have said before, that I think housing for the very poor in Canada undoubtedly is our most pressing issue in this field. I hope the minister will be able to come in and lay down the guidelines, so that at least they will be known to all the communities. I know he has done work in this regard in the city of Ottawa. However, I believe every community in Canada, whether small or large, should know what the Minister expects to bring forward so that they will know what is in store for the future. Then, too, all of us in this chamber will know that he is not just being guided by his own personal likes or dislikes. I hate to say personal things about a minister, but I believe that is appropriate. I hope he will bring in a statement of policy which will be applicable to every community in Canada and one which will indicate that people who otherwise could not enjoy the advantages of better housing

DEBATES	April 17, 1969
will be able to do so. That is my purpose in asking the question this evening.


Stanley Haidasz: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the hard working Minister of Transport (Mr. Hellyer), who this week is making a survey of urban renewal projects in Vancouver and Calgary, I welcome this opportunity to reply to the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave). I also share the hon. member's concern about public housing and his interest in the recommendations of the federal task force on housing and urban development. I am thinking particularly of the recommendation which states that the federal government should initiate a thorough research program into the economic, social and psychological aspects of public housing and also the other recommendations which the government is studying at the present time.
I should like to assure the hon. member that the minister has promised to give the earliest possible consideration to making an announcement about the special guidelines for the provision of better housing for the underprivileged people in this country. As he promised in one or two answers in the house, he hopes it may be possible for him to announce these guidelines perhaps next week.



HOUSING -EXTENSION OF LOAN FORGIVENESS PROVISION ON MUNICIPAL PROJECTS

Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, I am here tonight to argue the urgency of the question which I raised on Wednesday, April 16, as recorded at page 7596 of Hansard. My question was as follows:
My question is directed to the Minister of Transport in his capacity as minister in charge of housing. Since the housing task force report recommended loans and grants to municipalities in order that they might increase the amount of service land available, does the government contemplate any extension of the N.H.A. 25 per cent loan forgiveness provisions for municipal capital works projects, which are due to expire in March, 1970?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This does not appear to be a matter of great urgency-
It is understandable, I think, that Your Honour, at the mention of an expiry date almost a year hence, might conclude that the topic was not, on the surface, one of pressing urgency. As a former municipal alderman, I know something of the length of time it takes to complete a capital project of even the most modest proportions. Usually the steps following a decision to embark upon a water system, sewer system, public housing, urban
April 17, 1969	COMMONS
renewal or a pollution treatment plant are extremely complex and time-consuming. First of all, a feasibility study has to be made. Then, a by-law often has to be placed before the local ratepayers. In addition, plans have to be drawn, a detailed application must be submitted, and then there is the processing of application, amendments, and finally approval must be granted. Then, tenders for contracts have to be let, and so on, until the contract is completed. I think I have given enough detail to explain why such projects take a year, or even years sometimes, to complete.
This is why there is considerable urgency in my question, and why it is important that municipalities all across Canada know what to expect in terms of desperately needed capital assistance, so they will have confidence to proceed with essential works. The Canadian Federation of Mayors and Municipalities thought the matter of such urgency as to present a brief to the government in January of this year, urging an extension of the 25 per cent forgiveness of principal and interest on approved loans to municipalities for certain capital works.
This is why the municipalities I represent, which are members of the Greater Vancouver Sewage and Drainage Board and the Greater Vancouver Water Board have asked that I work for the extension of this very practical form of assistance, or at least attempt to learn what alternatives the government has to offer before the legislation expires in March, 1970, and all significant municipal service projects come to a halt. The government has proclaimed that it is concerned with the problems of urban living. Daily we hear questions underlining problems of pollution, housing and of an insufficient supply of economically priced serviced land for homes. The recent housing task force report recommends at page 43 as follows:
The federal government should make direct loans to municipalities or regional governments to assist them in assembling and servicing land for urban growth.
The imminent effect of the expiry of the forgiveness provisions of the municipal loan fund, without any word from the government about the specifics of alternative proposals or expanded assistance to accomplish precisely what the task force recommendation envisages, is of concern to many municipal leaders and is, I think, an apparent conflict with the recommendations of the task force.
DEBATES	7677
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
I should like to quote from a recent Canadian Federation of Mayors and Municipalities press release which will illustrate what I have been saying:
The Federation, again speaking for the municipalities of Canada, states emphatically that the National Housing Act program which provides for loans, and the forgiveness of a percentage of these loans, for the servicing of land (trunk sewers and sewage treatment plants) must be continued if Canada's minimum housing needs are to be met.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
In addition, the Federation states that this program must be expanded in order to enable the municipalities to assist in achieving a much higher production of housing to substantially reduce the current shortage.
It should not be forgotten that this shortage is, in itself, a major contributing factor to the high cost of housing and that, in order to be able to properly service the land needed for the new housing stock, the municipalities require this kind of financial assistance.
The municipalities are gravely concerned that the task force report implies a termination of this program, without any proposal for its substitution by a program of superior value. The Federation cannot agree with any policy that would see this program terminated.
Neither would I, without a suitable alternative. I hope then that the minister is able to provide the house with definite and detailed answers, because if the housing problem is urgent then I submit to you that my question is equally urgent.


Stanley Haidasz: On behalf of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hellyer) I would like to say that the information available to me indicates that already more than 1,400 loan approvals totalling approximately $300 million have been granted to about 900 municipalities in all provinces since the scheme referred to by the hon. member was introduced in 1960.
The possibility of continuing the extension of the 25 per cent loan forgiveness provision for municipal capital works projects is currently being examined, and a decision on this is expected at a later date.



INDUSTRY-DEVCO-COMPULSORY RETIREMENT OF MINERS

Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Brelon-Easl Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, since October 1 I have been putting questions to the minister in charge of the Cape Breton Development Corporation and objecting to the compulsory part of the pre-retirement leave plan of Devco. It
7678	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion is because oi my objections to this portion of the plan, which will compulsorily retire men at the age of 60 from their work in the Cape Breton coal mines, that I have been persistent in bringing this matter to the attention of the minister.
On October 1 Devco submitted their preretirement leave plan to the government and on page 3, paragraph 3 of the press release concerning the plan, reference is made to the fact the plan is authorized under section 18 of the act. Section 18 of the act does not authorize anything. This plan cannot be officially sanctioned until the Treasury Board approves it. Confirmation of this fact can be found in the act where approval of the Treasury Board is made absolutely necessary to sanction this plan.
I have continued to object to the compulsory part of this plan, and to certain other developments the most recent one of which is the notice sent out to the employees who would be either compulsorily or voluntarily retiring under the plan to which a question and answer section was attached by Devco. I find a mistaken statement in it according to which the false impression is left that the bill as approved by parliament is now law, and that it supersedes collective agreements. This is a mistake because, to my knowledge, that bill did not become law until today. It is a matter which the minister assured me yesterday the Treasury Board will look after, and I understand this has been the case.
I continue to object to the early and compulsory retirement of miners and Devco employees at the age of 60. I ask that the minister, at his convenience, provide the house with information as to whether Devco will have to give a further notice because, after all, since the legislation became effective only today it follows that another notice will be required. Yesterday the minister indicated this might be the case when he referred to the fact that there was no reason why the notices sent out to the miners and employees involved could not be cancelled.
I do not wish to address my remarks solely to the parliamentary secretary, but also to others who are listening and who can possibly take action on this situation. Devco and the government should withdraw the compulsory element in this early retirement plan for obvious reasons. For one thing, unless it is withdrawn, those concerned are denying the statement made by the minister on January 14.

DEBATES	April 17, 1969
This brings me to another matter which makes the communication of October 1 wrong. Since then, on many occasions and as late as January 15, the minister has reported that negotiations were still being carried on with one of the unions affected. Since these negotiations are in progress the announcement by Devco of the pre-retirement plan is not in accord with the facts. The minister indicated on January 15 that this matter was still being dealt with. I refer to page 4327 of Hansard where the minister is reported as saying, in answer to questions about the retirement plan and negotiations with the unions:
Yes, Mr. Speaker, negotiations are still going on. I think the union representatives are attending a meeting this week or next week.
Again, this1 would indicate that the facts as presented by Devco were not accurate, or not in accord with what the minister was telling us.
Another reason why the compulsory element should be withdrawn, is this. On page 4245 of Hansard of January 14 I am recorded as having asked the minister whether Devco would honour the general agreements which were in effect at the time it took over from Dominion Coal. The minister answered as follows:
Mr. Speaker, I do not know all the implications of the question. I should look into it and I may answer tomorrow.
Here are the important words in the minister's answer:
In principle I say that the corporation should keep its word and live up to its agreements.
I would, therefore, ask the government and those people who are well aware of the situation in Cape Breton to reconsider this plan for compulsory retirement at the age of 60 and allow men from 60 to 65 to continue to work if they wish to do so. Otherwise, the government is about to participate in an unheard-of form of discrimination. Hon. gentlemen opposite are supposed to be struggling to do all they can for older workers, yet they are about to launch a program directly against people who wish to continue to work in some categories where they are experiencing their peak earning years. I would respectfully ask the Parliamentary Secretary to report to the minister and ask him to assure the older workers in Cape Breton that his statement of January 14 will be acted upon and that Devco will honour the agreements in effect at the time of the take-over from Dominion Coal.
April 17. 1969	COMMONS
Time does not permit me to go into some of the other objections I have to what is going on in respect of the early retirement plan but I assure the minister I shall continue to put them before him at every opportunity.


Mr. Russell C. Honey (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Regional and Economic Expansion):: Friday, April 18, 1969



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Third report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, in English and in French- Mr. Hales.
[Editors Note: The text of the foregoing report appears in today's Votes and Proceedings]