1969-11-17

[Stage Direction]
Mr. Viaieur Eihier (Glengarry-Prescott)
asked for leave to introduce Bill C-153 entitled "An Act respecting the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act".
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
[English\

[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Government Notices of Motions-November 13, 1969-The President of the Privy Council:
That the White Paper entitled Proposals for Tax Reform, tabled in the House on November 7, 1969, be referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 21(2) this notice of motion is transferred to and ordered for consideration under government orders at the next sitting of the House.



QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER

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

Mr. Gilbert: 1.	Has the Government of Canada imposed a five-year freeze on the capital budget of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation?
2.	If not, is any type of freeze on CMHC's capital budget contemplated?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister without Portfolio):: 1. No.
2.	No. Each year the government determines the funds that it can reasonably allocate to CMHC to finance its various programs.


ONTARIO MEDICARE PLAN-DESIGNATION OF PRIVATE COMPANIES AS CARRIERS
Mr. Gilbert: Has the federal government agreed to the provisions in the Ontario medicare plan regarding (a) the designation of the private insurance companies as the public carriers for the plan and (b) the financial arrangement between the Ontario Government and the private insurance companies on administrative costs of the plan?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: (a) Private insurance companies do not function as agents of the Ontario provincial authority. Healthco, a nonprofit corporation made up of private insurance companies and other bodies, acts as the agent of the provincial authority, (b) A contract between the Ontario authority and its non-profit agent, Healthco meets the requirements of the Medical Care Act.


D. FULLERTON-POSITIONS AND SALARY
Mr. Skoberg: 1.	When did Mr. D. Fullerton submit his resignation as Chairman of the Board of DEVCO?
2.	What was Mr. Fullerton's annual salary as Chairman of DEVCO?
3.	When did the Government of Canada indicate to Mr. Fullerton that it wished to appoint him as Chairman of the National Capital Commission?
4.	What is Mr. Fullerton's annual salary as Chairman of the National Capital Commission?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: 1. July 2, 1969.
2.	Mr. Fullerton was not paid a salary as Chairman of DEVCO. However, he received an honorarium of $5,000 per annum plus a fee of $100 a day while attending meetings.
3.	Toward the end of July, 1969.
4.	The Government's arrangement with Mr. Fullerton provides that he devote 75 percent, of his time to the function of Chairman of the National Capital Commission. His salary based on an annual rate of $30,000, is $22,500.


CBC-ADVERTISING POLICY
Mr. Broadbent: 1.	Is the CBC changing its commercial advertising policy with four rather than three minutes of commercial time per half-hour on television now being available?
2.	If so, what are the reasons for this change in policy?

November 17, 1969
Questions


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: I am informed by the CBC as follows: 1. Prior to the present programming year, the allowable commercial content for all sponsored programs on the French Television Network and English Metro-Net (CBC-owned stations) and for selectively sponsored programs on both English and French CBC-owned television stations was four minutes per half-hour. Full English network sponsors were limited to three minutes plus billboards after 6:00 p.m. With the beginning of the 1969/70 program season the "four-minute format" was extended to all sponsored half-hour programs on the full English Television Network, as has been the case on the French TV Network.
2.	The increase in allowable commercial content on the full English network not only brings all phases of the Corporation's commercial operations into line but it also puts the CBC in step with all private segments of the television industry in Canada, both on a network and selective basis. Since the four-minute format is now the rule, rather than the exception, Canadian advertisers have oriented their sales and marketing strategy accordingly. The extra minute results in both the major and minor sponsor on alternate weeks receiving an equal amount of advertising time in each program, i.e., two minutes for each half hour of programming. This provides the kind of continuous program identification that advertisers have come to expect from alternate week sponsorship.


NATO COMMUNICATIONS RESEARCH PROGRAM
Mr. Broadbenl: 1.	What countries are participating in the NATO communications research program established in 1967?
2.	What have been the total expenditures for this program for the years 1967, 1968, 1969 and the estimated expenditures for 1970, 1971 and 1972?
3.	For each of the above past years, what has been the respective expenditure contribution by Canada and the other seven countries?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Minister of National Defence):: 1. Belgium, Canada, Germany, Great Britain, Italy, The Netherlands, Norway and the United States of America.
2.	Total expenditures are not known as this is not a commonly funded program. Participating countries provide their own ground equipment for testing purposes using a satellite made available by the United States.
3.	Expenditures by Canada for ground equipment are as follows: 1967-68, $50,000.00; 1968-69, $438,754.46; 1969-70, $147,000.00.
[Mr. Broadbent.l


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Gleave: When is It anticipated that the federal Task Force on Agriculture will submit its final report to the federal government?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: The Task Force is expected to submit its report to the Minister by December 1969.


STANDARDS FOR SALE AND PURCHASE OF MEAT PRODUCTS
Mrs. Maclnnis: What standards have been established by the Government of Canada regarding the sale and purchase of meat products in Canada?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: In so far as the Department of Agriculture is concerned: Established standards for the carcasses of beef, veal, lamb and mutton, hogs and poultry are set out in regulations under the Canada Agricultural Products Standards Act, Order-in-Council P.C. 1958-991, 19581058, 1968-2279 and 1959-1211. Under the Meat Inspection Act, prescribed standards are established to ensure wholesomeness of imported meat products and domestic meat or meat food products moved into interprovincial or export trade.


USE OF SPACE SATELLITES, ALOUETTE I, ALOUETTE II
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Which countries have submitted requests to the Government of Canada to share in the use of Canada's space satellites Alouette I and Alouette II?
2.	Which countries presently have working agreements with Canada regarding the use of Canada's space satellites?


Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Postmaster General and Minister of Communications):: 1. As a
result of the offer by the Government of Canada to share in the use of the Canada's Alouette I and II satellites, representatives of nine countries have expressed a definite interest. They are: Peru, Spain, Nigeria, Denmark, Israel, Taiwan, South Africa, Poland and Finland.
2.	The countries which presently have a formal working agreement with Canada regarding the use of Canada's space satellites Alouette and ISIS are: USA, UK, France, Norway, Japan, Australia and India.
November 17, 1969



Questions
DRUG INFORMATION BULLETIN	PANARCTIC OILS LTD.-LOSS OF BARGES


Mr. Saltsman: When is it anticipated that the Food and Drug Directorate of the Department of Health and Welfare will commence issuing a monthly information bulletin on drugs to doctors, pharmacists, hospitals and dentists?


John Carr Munro: Plans are well advanced for the publication of the Drug Information Bulletin by the Food and Drug Directorate of the Department of National Health and Welfare. The target date for the first issue is January, 1970.


CBC TELEVISION EXPENDITURES
Mr. Broadbent: 1.	For the fiscal years 1955-56, 1960-61, 1961-62,
1962-63, 1963-64,	1964-65, 1965-66, 1966-67, 1967-68,
1968-69, what was the total expenditure of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (Television) and of that amount, what percentage was publicly funded and what percentage was due to commercial advertising revenues?
2.	Is the Government of Canada presently giving favourable consideration to the elimination of commercial advertising over the CBC TV network?


Gérard Pelletier: 1.	I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation that the following table summarizes the total expenditure of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (Television), the percentage provided by Parliamentary Grants and the percentage due to commercial advertising revenue for the years indicated. The remaining percentage of revenue was due to miscellaneous income. Expenditure totals do not include depreciation, capital expenditure, loan principal repayment, and International Service expenditure.
%
% Provided by Provided by Commercial
Expenditure	Parliamen-	Advert'gin $000's	tary Grants	Revenue1955-56	34,012	52	471960-61	78,360	53	451961-62	82,613	62	371962-63	83,257	64	341963-64	89,411	65	331964-65	95,112	67	321965-66	101,552	67	311966-67	115,853	70	281967-68	141,319	71	261968-69	146,312	71	26
2. No.


Mr. Thomson (Baiileford-: Kindersley):
1.	What is the estimated financial cost to Panarctic Oils Ltd. resulting from the loss, in Arctic waters, of two unmanned conventional barges in August due to ice conditions?
2.	Was there any oil pollution due to this damage and, if so (a) what was its type and (b) what precautions have been taken to ensure no such further oil pollution occurs?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1. Net
loss to Panarctic Oils Ltd. attributed to the loss of two barges, named the Learmonth and Johnny Norberg and their contained cargoes was $898,000.
2.	(a) Pollution resulted from release of diesel oil and JP 4 (airplane turbine fuel) which was confined to a small area by a natural boom of ice flows, (b) The Norberg, the fuel carrying barge, was flooded so as to restore it on an even keel. The cargo vents were adjusted to allow the barge to gradually sink on an even keel. Thereby most of the fuel cargo remains within the hull of the barge sunk in almost 600 feet of water.


NEW GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS, HULL
Mr. Maiher: Which federal government buildings are anticipated to be built in Hull, starting construction in the calendar years 1969 and 1970?
Hon. Arihur Laing (Minister of Public
Works): The Headquarters Building for the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.


CBC AND CKLW-TV, WINDSOR-CBC AND TELESAT CANADA
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	What were the reasons for the CBC rejecting the opportunity to purchase CKLW-T.V. Windsor?
2.	What was the indicated purchase price for CKLW-T.V. Windsor?
3.	What was the anticipated annual operating cost of operations under CBC ownership?
4.	What is the arrangement agreed to between the CBC and Telesat Canada?
5.	Is the CBC presently committed to taking three T.V. channels on satellite through Telesat?
6.	What are the estimated expenditures for the CBC under any arrangement agreed to between the CBC and Telesat Canada?


Gérard Pelletier: I am informed by the CBC as follows: 1. The Corporation, after making a special examination of the position of CKLW-TV, in order to determine the capital and operating costs which would result from acquisition of the

November 17, 1969
Questions
station, concluded that it did not have the resources available within its capital and operating budget for the current or the coming fiscal year to enable it to purchase and operate the station.
2.	The only information the CBC has is that obtained from newspaper reports that the purchase price was in the neighbourhood of $5 million.
3.	The study made by the CBC indicated the probability of an annual operating deficit of several hundred thousand dollars in each of the first three years following a takeover by the Corporation.
4.	5 and 6. Discussions have not been concluded; consequently no final decisions have been reached as to the number of TV channels to be taken by the CBC on the satellite, nor as to the costs which would be involved for the CBC in respect of such channels as may be taken.


REDUCTIONS IN GRANTS FOR EMERGENCY HEALTH AND WELFARE SERVICES
Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg Norih' Centre): 1.	On what date did the Minister of National Health and Welfare announce reductions for 19701971 with respect to Emergency Health Services Emergency Welfare Services, and general and national health grants?
2.	On what date were the provincial governments informed of the above cuts insofar as they affect federal-provincial agreements?


John Carr Munro: 1. (a) Emergency Health Services on September 25, 1969; (b) Emergency Welfare Services on September 25, 1969; (c) General and National Health Grants, at the Federal-Provincial Conference of Ministers of Health held in Ottawa on November 4, 1968, it was announced that certain of the Health Grants would be phased out over a three year period, beginning April 1, 1969.
2.	(a) Emergency Health Services, on October 3, 1969, by letter mailed on that date.
(b)	Emergency Welfare Services, at the Federal-Provincial Emergency Welfare Services Directors' Conference on October 15-16, 1969.
(c)	General and Health Grants, See answer (Part 1-c) above.


CBC TELEVISION ADVERTISING REGULATIONS
Mr. Mather: 1.	What are the present CBC regulations regarding T.V. commercial advertising?
2.	Are any changes in the present rules contemplated?
(Mr. Pelletier.]


Gérard Pelletier: I am informed by the CBC as follows: 1. CBC regulations regarding T.V. commercial advertising are made up of detailed internal directives governing the commercial policies of the Corporation in such areas as commercial acceptance, procedures, sales rates and discounts and general sales policies. These run to several volumes.
2.	Yes. The commercial policies of the Corporation are under continual review and are changed when considered advisable.


LLOYD AXWORTHY-CRITERIA FOR APPOINTMENT
Mr. Nystrom: What special criteria was used by the Department of Secretary of State in the appointment of Mr. Lloyd Axworthy as a member of the Council of the Company of Young Canadians?
Hon Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):
One of the main objects of the Company of Young Canadians being to "engage in community development work in urban and rural areas in Canada" (Section 15(a) of the Company of Young Canadians Act), there was a need for expert opinion on that subject. Mr. Axworthy is presently Director of the Institute of Urban Studies at the University of Winnipeg for Housing and Development, and thus should be in a position to make valuable contributions to the undertakings of the Company of Young Canadians in that field.


ECONOMIC COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING POVERTY
Mr. Nystrom: Is the Government of Canada giving favourable consideration to the recommendation of the Economic Council of Canada in its latest annual report that (a) there be established a federal-provincial organization charged with looking at poverty in Canada and (b) the federal government should establish an office to provide information and to co-ordinate research on poverty?


John Carr Munro: (a) and (b) The Government of Canada is presently conducting an assessment of federal social development programs. Any decisions arising from that assessment will be announced by the Government in the usual manner.


EVERDALE PLACE SCHOOL-CYC FINANCIAL SUPPORT
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	What financial support did the Company of Young Canadians give to the Everdale Place School in each year since the Company of Young Canadians has supported the school?
November 17, 1969

Questions
2.	How many staff members and how many Company of Young Canadians volunteers were supported in each year at the Everdale Place School?
3.	How many students are attending the school?
4.	What fees are charged to the parents of each student?
5.	What methods have been developed to channel successful new educational theories into the existing Ontario school system?


Gérard Pelletier: I am informed by the Company of Young Canadians as follows: 1. Year ending March 31, 1968, $33,490; Year ending March 31, 1969, $46,407.
2.	Six volunteers and one staff person per year from June 1967 to September 1969. From September 30, 1969, the Company of Young Canadians has supported two volunteers and will continue this support until June 1970, when CYC support will be phased out.


CYC STAFF
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	How many staff members did the Company of Young Canadians have in the year ending March 31, 1969?
2.	What salaries and benefits were paid to staff members in this period?


Gérard Pelletier: I am informed by the Company of Young Canadians as follows: 1. In the year ending March 31, 1969, the Company had an average of 54 staff members.
2.	During this period, salaries paid to staff members totalled $448,230.53. Benefits paid on behalf of staff members which included medical insurance, Ontario Hospital, Death Benefits, Unemployment Insurance, Superannuation, Quebec Pension Plan and Canada Pension Plan totalled $29,387.55.


OLD AGE SECURITY PENSION
[Stage Direction]
3.	Forty full time students.
4.	The standard fee at Everdale Place is $1,350. Of the students presently attending Everdale, 9 students are on scholarship; two students pay the standard fee; 29 students pay from $0 to $2,600. Parents of two students have paid double the standard fee required in order to ensure support for Everdale Place.
5.	Everdale Place has developed contacts with various education bodies such as the Ontario Institute of Studies in Education, Ontario College of Education and York University. Members of Everdale Place respond to numerous speaking invitations from teachers' groups, high school and public school students, social agencies, as well as from the media. Everdale also publishes the widely circulated magazine-"This Magazine is About Schools".
Question No. 198

Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg
North Centre):
1.	How many persons in Canada, by provinces, are in receipt of the Old Age Security pension?
2.	Of the recipients of the Old Age Security pension, how many persons in Canada, by provinces, are in receipt of the Guaranteed Income Supplement?
3.	Of those receiving the Guaranteed Income Supplement, how many persons in Canada, by provinces, are receiving the full amount?
4.	What is the average amount, in Canada, and by provinces, being received as a Guaranteed Income Supplement by recipients of the Old Age Security Pension?
5.	Do the answers to the above questions take into consideration persons living outside of Canada who are in receipt of the Old Age Security pension and, if so, how many of such persons are there, and if they are considered as belonging to the various provinces what is the number for each province?
John Carr Munro: The figures given below are as of September 30, 1969:
Newfoundland Prince Edward Island Nova Scotia New Brunswick Quebec Ontario Manitoba Saskatchewan Alberta
British Columbia Northwest Territories Yukon
Canada
Part 1	Part 2
28,974	23,297
11,483	8,273
64,895	40,402
49,093	30,879
356,170	212,951
564,126	241,975
86,273	46,557
85,196	42,679
102,610	54,730
179,791	83,270
738	625
419	235
1,529,768	785,873
Part 3	Part 4
18,581	$29.78
5,576	27.78
26,366	27.68
21,498	28.00
144,473	28.33
125,144	25.22
26,248	27.96
24,738	27.06
32,405	31.05
47,561	26.50
569	31.20
199	31.20
473,358	$27.11

November 17, 1969
Questions
5.	Yes. The following are the numbers of persons receiving the Old Age Security pension outside of Canada. No information is available on the numbers among those persons who are receiving a Guaranteed Income Supplement, which is payable outside of Canada for up to six months of absence.
Newfoundland	93
Prince Edward Island	50
Nova Scotia	335
New Brunswick	373
Quebec	2,465
Ontario	4,777
Manitoba	585
Saskatchewan	535
Alberta	641
British Columbia	2,837
Northwest Territories	1
Yukon	6
12,698


PENSIONS OF RETIRED R.C.M.P. PERSONNEL
Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg: North Centre):
1.	How many retired Royal Canadian Mounted Police personnel are receiving pensions of amounts within each of the following brackets: (a) less than $20.00 per month (b) $20.00 to $29.99 per month (c) $30.00 to $39.99 per month (d) $40.00 to $49.99 per month (e) $50.00 to $59.99 per month (f) $60.00 to $69.99 per month (g) $70.00 to $79.99 per month (h) $80.00 to $89.99 per month (i) $90.00 to $99.99 per month (j) $100.00 to 149.99 per month (k) 150.00 to 199.99 per month (1) $200.00 to $249.99 per month (m) $250.00 to $299.99 per month (n) $300.00 per month and over?
2.	How many widows of R.C.M.P. personnel or of retired R.C.M.P. personnel are receiving pensions of amounts within each of the brackets indicated in the above question?
3.	What is the number of retired R.C.M.P. personnel and also the number of widows of R.C.M.P. personnel or of retired R.C.M.P. personnel presently residing in each province?
4.	In respect of how many orphans of R.C.M.P. personnel are pensions being paid and what is the average amount thereof?


Hon. G. J. Mcllraith (Solicitor General):: 1.	(a) Nil, (b) nil, (c) 4, (d) 4, (e) 13, (f) 31, (g) 41, (h) 41, (i) 46, (j) 396, (k) 392, (1) 359, (m) 280 and (n) 705.
2.	(a) 12, (b) 10, (c) 10, (d) 21, (e) 21, (f) 24, (g) 14, (h) 8, (i) 11, (j) 51, (k) 30, (1) 10, (m) 5 and (n) 4.
3.	Retired
Province	Personnel Widows
Newfoundland	36	2Prince Edward Island	20	NilNova Scotia	178	13New Brunswick	66	7Quebec	178	7Ontario	498	63Manitoba	117	9Saskatchewan	145	6Alberta	323	27British Columbia	649	86Northwest Territories	24	NilOutside Canada	78	114.	101-Average $27.07.


DESIGNATED AREAS-EXCLUSION OF COUNTY OF RENFREW, ONTARIO
Mr. Peters: 1.	What are the reasons for the exclusion of Eastern Ontario and particularly the county of Renfrew, from the incentives area designation program?
2.	Did the Ontario Government agree to these exclusions?


Jean Marchand: 1. While eastern Ontario has enjoyed less rapid growth than southern Ontario, its growth rates are close to the national average. This is true of employment growth even in Renfrew county individually.
2. No provincial government was asked to agree formally to exclusions. The Ontario government recognized the reasons for giving priority, in designation for the industrial incentive program, to northern Ontario.


NATIONAL PAROLE BOARD
Mr. Winch: 1.	Did the National Parole Board curtail plans to hire additional parole officers this year?
2.	If so, what are the reasons for the postponement of hiring additional officers?
3.	Is there a backlog of parole applications building up across Canada and, if so, how many?
4.	What is the estimated cost to the Federal Treasury of keeping a man in jail each year?
5.	Presently, how many parole officers are employed by the National Parole Board?
6.	At present, how many prisoners are on parole in Canada?
7.	What is the present total salary cost of parole officers employed by the National Parole Board?


George James McIlraith: 1.	Partially.
2.	Because the establishment was fixed at the number of officers on strength as of July 31, 1969. Subsequently these limitations were lifted in part.
IMr. Munro.]
November 17, 1969

3.	No. There are some 300 cases which might be described as a backlog but this figure actually represents a decrease in the backlog over the past few months.
4.	$6,654. is the average annual cost per inmate in a federal penal institution for the fiscal year 1968-69. This is exclusive of the capital cost for construction of the institutions.
5.	109 as at October 23, 1969.
6.	3,306 as at September 30, 1969.
7.	$1,128,270. per annum.


IMMIGRATION OP UNITED STATES DOCTORS AND MALE NURSES
Mr. Mather: How many U.S. doctors and male nurses have come to Canada because of, or since the institution of the American draft legislation?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: During the last ten-year period, from 1959 to 1968, there were 7,487 Physicians and Surgeons admitted to Canada from the United States. No figures are available to indicate the number of male nurses who were admitted. The Department is unable to state what may have motivated these people to migrate to Canada.


DEVELOPMENT OF CITE DU HAVRE
Mr. Gilbert: 1 Did Community Development Consultants Limited prepare a master plan for Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation on the development of Cite du Havre in Montreal?
2.	Was this plan discussed and studied at a meeting in May between Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Montreal and the National Harbours Board?
3.	What were the results of this meeting?
4.	What action is now being proposed by the Government of Canada regarding the development of Cite du Havre?


Robert Knight Andras: 1. Community Development Consultants Limited were retained jointly by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the National Harbours Board to prepare a development plan for the lands owned by the federal government at Cite du Havre in Montreal.
2. A preliminary plan prepared by the consultants was discussed with officials of the City of Montreal to acquaint them with the progress of the study. Officials of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the National Harbours Board were present.
Questions
3.	As the purpose of the meeting was to clarify matters of mutual concern between the city and the consultants, it assisted the consultants in making their recommendations.
4.	No immediate action is proposed. The future use of these lands is still under study.


COST OF ESTABLISHMENT OF CANADIAN EMBASSY AT THE VATICAN
Mr. Howard (Skeena): For the fiscal year 1969-70, what are the esti mated government expenditures for the establishment of a Canadian embassy at the Vatican?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: 


$62,000. REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION-INCENTIVE GRANTS
Mr. Burton: 1.	Does the Department of Regional Economic Expansion in the application for an incentive grant under Bill C-202, include the criteria of whether the applicant has received any form of provincial assistance?
2.	What other specific criteria are considered in the application for an incentive grant under Bill C-202?


Jean Marchand: 1. Yes (see section 6(c) of the Act).
2. The other criteria laid down in section 6.


QUEBEC-TRANSFER OF RESIDENTS TO LARGER COMMUNITIES
Mr. Burton: Was the Department of Regional Economic Expansion informed by the Quebec Government on plans to wipe out about a dozen settlements in the eastern part of the Province of Quebec and transfer their residents to larger communities and, if so, when was the Department informed?


Jean Marchand: If the plans referred to are those to assist people who wish to move from certain marginal settlements, yes, on December 15, 1968.


NEWFOUNDLAND-TRAINING OF INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT OFFICERS
Mr. Marshall: Has the Province of Newfoundland applied for training courses for Industrial Development Officers under the Industrial Intelligence and Promotion Branch of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion?


Jean Marchand: Yes. One course has already been held and two more will be held shortly.

November 17, 1969
Questions


HOUSE OF COMMONS-REPLACEMENT OF WINDOWS
Mr. Diefenbaker: 1.	How many windows in the Centre Block have been replaced during the last six months?
2.	What was the price of each unit that was installed?
3.	What disposal was made of the old units?
4.	What was the total cost of the replacement?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Public Works):: 1. 698 windows.
2.	Average cost $115.
3.	Disposal by contractor as part of contract.
4.	$80,500.


FISHERIES AND FARM IMPROVEMENT, SMALL BUSINESS LOANS
Mr. Marshall: 1.	How many applications were received for (a) Fisheries Improvement Loans (b) Farm Improvement Loans (c) Small Business Loans?
2.	How many were approved and how many were denied?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: 1.
Applications for loans under all these programs are submitted to a bank and not to the Government. We are not informed of applications received but only of those approved for loans since the bank is responsible under the legislation for determining whether or not a loan shall be granted.
2. Following numbers of loans have been granted under the various programs since inception to December 31, 1968:
No.
Fisheries Improvement Loans	2,788
Farm Improvement Loans	1,433,297
Small Businesses Loans	19,411
Value

7,272,291
2,186,221,728
179,063,241


'NATIONAL ARTS CENTRE POSTERS
Mr. Dinsdale: Is there a policy discouraging information officers of the National Arts Centre from putting up posters in federal government buildings and, if so, what is the reason for the policy?


Arthur Laing: As far as the Department of Public Works is concerned there is no such policy. I might add that a check with Arts Centre officials revealed no complaints of this nature. Indeed, to the contrary, we have been advised that the Arts Centre's publicity staff have been receiving full co-operation from all government departments.


TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY
Mr. Danson: 1.	What has been the total of grants to each province for the Trans-Canada Highway?
2.	How many miles of Trans-Canada Highway are there in each province?
3.	What is the volume of traffic per mile in each province?
Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Public Works) 1. The contributions to the provinces to September 30, 1969, under the Trans-Canada Highway program are as follows:
million
Newfoundland	$112.0
Prince Edward Island	10.7
Nova Scotia	72.5
New Brunswick	89.5
Quebec	159.5
Ontario	.	134.9
Manitoba	21.0
Saskatchewan	17.7
Alberta	23.4
British Columbia	121.2
2. The mileage of the Trans-Canada Highway in each province is as follows:
miles
Newfoundland	565*
Prince Edward Island	71
Nova Scotia	278
New Brunswick	376
Quebec	388
Ontario	1453
Manitoba	310
Saskatchewan	406
Alberta	333t
British Columbia	616t
^Includes 25 miles through Terra Nova National Park
tlncludes 51 miles through Banff National Park
tlncludes 64 miles through Yoho, Glacier and Revelstoke National Parks
3.	Since the operation of the Trans-Canada Highway is under the jurisdiction of the provinces, traffic volume figures are not compiled by the Government of Canada.


CORNWALLIS NAVAL BASE
Mr. Comeau: 1.	Is it the intention of the government to terminate the operations of the Armed Forces at Cornwallis Naval Base?
2.	Does the Department of National Defence have plans to reduce personnel at Cornwallis and, if so, by how many?
November 17, 1969


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: 1. No.
2.	All establishments are being reviewed with a view to economies in the cost of operation so that the Department can live within its current and projected budget. Therefore, it is possible that there may be reductions in personnel at CFB Cornwallis.


CLOSING OF POST OFFICES
Mr. Comeau: 1.	How many post offices have been closed in Canada during the past year?
2 What is the number per province?
3.	How many are scheduled to be closed?
4.	How many are scheduled to be closed in the Province of Nova Scotia, and where is each situated.


Eric William Kierans: 1. 478.
2.	Newfoundland, 23; Nova Scotia, 61; Prince Edward Island, 16; New Brunswick, 44; Quebec, 86; Ontario, 117; Manitoba, 23; Saskatchewan, 42; Alberta, 52; British Columbia, 12; Northwest Territories, 1; and the Yukon, 1.
3.	303.
4.	(a) 42. (b) Argyle Head, Aspy Bay, Athol, Bay St. Lawrence, Bramer, Cambridge, Cap-stick, Dalhousie West, East Dover, East Ferry, Ecum Secum, Ecum Secum Bridge, Glenholme, Grand Anse, Gypsum Mines, Harbourville, Indian Point, Latties Brook, Little Bass River, Londonderry Station, Meat Cove, Melanson, Middle Stewiacke, Mink Cove, Morden, Mush-aboom, Nappan, Oban, Pembroke, River Phillip, Seaview, Somerset, South West Mabou, South River Lake, Spry Bay, Sugar Loaf, Sweets Corners, Tidville, Upper Wedge-port, Wentworth Centre, West Brook, and West La Have.


WESTERN CANADA-DIVERSIFIED AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM
Mr. Robinson: Is it the intention of the federal government to implement a program of diversified agriculture in Western Canada?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The government will continue to provide information and implement programs which will assist farmers in reaching their own decisions as to the type of production in which to engage.
Questions


REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES APPLICATIONS
Mr. Marshall: 1.	Of the 131 applications received under the Regional Development Incentives Act, what is the breakdown of the number of applications by province?
2.	Were any applicants rejected and, if so, what are their names?
3.	What are the names of the applicants to whom offers were made?


Jean Marchand: 1, 2 and 3. Details of all cases will be reported when an offer has been made and the applicant has started the project. Until that time, it is essential to the operation of the Act that business confidence be maintained. Statistical analyses of applications, offers, rejections, etc., distributed by provinces, will not be published monthly, because in some circumstances this could lead to deductions about particular projects; such analyses will be published annually.


TROOP WITHDRAWALS FROM BASES- SAVINGS VIS-A-VIS LOSSES
Mr. MacLean: Would the Minister of National Defence advise the House how long it will be before the savings on current expenditures gained from the withdrawal of Canadian troops from certain bases will equal the possible capital losses entailed?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Savings on operations and maintenance costs will accrue progressively to the Department as the Base Consolidation Program proceeds, with maximum savings realized after the bases are closed and transferred to new ownership. It is not possible to estimate proceeds from the sale or transfer of the facilities.


EMERGENCY MEASURES ORGANIZATION
Mr. Comeau: 1.	Will funds designated for the Emergency Measures Organization cease and, if so, when, and for what reasons?
2.	What is the present cost of this program?
3.	Will the EMO college at Arnprior remain open?
4.	What is the cost of operating this college?
5.	How many persons are on the permanent payroll for this organization and what is the level of their salaries?
6.	How many part-time employees work for this organization and what is the level of their salaries?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: 1. There are no plans for the cessation of the activities of the Canada Emergency Measures Organization.

November 17, 1969
Questions
2.	$5,000,000.
3.	Yes.
4.	During the current fiscal year $404,980.
5.	The present establishment of the Canada Emergency Measures Organization is 92 positions. Salaries range from approximately $4,400 to approximately $27,000 per annum, with an average salary of approximately $11,000.
6.	None.


RCMP SUPERANNUATION FUND
Mr. Barnett: 1.	What, for each of the last five years, is the total amount contributed by members of the R.C.M.P. to the R.C.M.P. Superannuation Fund/
2.	What, for each of the last five years, has been the income from investments to the Fund?
3.	What, for each of the last five years, has been the amount paid out in pensions from the Fund?
4.	What, at the close of the fiscal year for each of the last five years, has been the balance on hand in the Fund?


George James McIlraith: 1.	1964-65, $2,100,821.99;	1965-66, $2,252,-
196.56; 1966-67, $2,155,858.34; 1967-68, $2,732,507.42; 1968-69, $3,385,623.96.
2. Interest is credited to the R.C.M.P. Superannuation Account on the last day of each quarter in each fiscal year, namely, on June 30, on September 30, on December 31 and on March 31, respectively, calculated at the rate of one per cent of the balance to the credit of the Account on the last day of the preceding quarter.
Year		Interest
1964-65		$1,929,488.33
1965-66		$2,420,759.75
1966-67		$2,841,067.52
1967-68		$3,534,722.02
1968-69		$4,494,764.86
3. 1964-65		$ 419,929.17
1965-66		$ 509,394.31
1966-67		$ 637,898.76
1967-68		$ 778,415.27
1968-69		$ 880,981.63
4. 1964-65	$	57,706,948.591965-66	$	65,411,253.451966-67	$	85,081,315.271967-68	$104,724,111.76	1968-69	$130,811,253.12	
[Mr. Cadieux (Labelle).l


REPLACEMENT OF ARGUS BY LOCKHEED P-3C ORION
Mr. Lambert (Edmonton: West):
1.	Has any firm decision been taken to replace the Argus aircraft with the Lockheed P-3C Orion and, if so, what is the date of the decision?
2.	How many aircraft is it proposed to acquire?
3.	What is the estimated cost per aircraft, with spares, etc.?
4.	When is it proposed to start the replacement and when should it be completed?
5.	What is proposed to be done with Argus aircraft?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Attention is directed to Hansard, page 8419, dated May 7, 1969. It is anticipated the studies referred to will be completed in mid 1970.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Broadbent: 1.	For the years 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968 and 1969 (a) which and how many non-resident owned or controlled firms have been awarded financial grants or incentives under the Defence Industrial Research Board and (b) in each case, what was the total financial grant or incentive allotted?
2.	For the same years (a) which and how many Canadian owned or controlled firms have been awarded financial grants under the Defence Industrial Research Program, and (b) in each case, what was the total financial grant or incentive allotted?
Return tabled.


CANADA COUNCIL GRANTS TO PUBLICATIONS
Mr. Nysirom: 1.	What is the Canada Council's policy in providing grants for Canadian publications which publish both literary (or arts) and political material?
2.	Does the Canada Council provide grants for only purely literary or arts journals?
3.	For the years 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968 and 1969, which Canadian publications received grants from the Canada Council and what was the amount of each grant?
4.	For what reasons has the Canada Council rejected grants for the publication "Canadian Dimension"?
5.	For what reasons has the Canada Council rejected grants for the publication "Edge" magazine?
6.	For what reasons did the Canada Council agree to grants for the Quebec publication "Uberte"?
7.	Does "Liberte" publish political material in its publication?
8.	Is Mr. Naim Kotton the Arts officer of the Canada Council?
November 17, 1969

9.	Does Mr. Kotton submit material for publication in "Liberte"?
10.	If so, when was this material published in "Liberte"?
Return tabled.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)



MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER S.O. 26 EXTERNAL AFFAIRS BIAFRA-AID FOR STARVING-STATEMENT BY PRIME MINISTER

Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Roy-al: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 26 I move, seconded by the hon. member for Greenwood, the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely, the Prime Minister's answer to a question on Friday, reported at page 824 of Hansard, stating that the Biafran authorities do not permit daylight flights and are using night flights of relief supplies in order to screen shipments of arms. I might say that the concluding words have been changed from the words actually used by the Prime Minister, which were "bring in shipments of arms".
In view of the fact that this statement may seriously prejudice the longstanding Canadian tradition of neutrality, as well as endanger the extensive relief operation upon which the lives of millions of civilians depend, I ask Your Honour to give consideration to allowing this motion to be put.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Fundy-Royal has proposed to move the adjournment of the House under the provisions of Standing Order 26 for the purpose of discussing a statement made by the Prime Minister on Friday last. As the hon. member for Fundy-Royal knows, and as all hon. members know, what the Chair has to determine is not whether the matter itself is one of importance but whether the House should be adjourned for an emergency debate under the terms of Standing Order 26.
The Standing Order cannot be invoked to initiate a debate about an issue which is of a continuing nature. It would appear that even when one takes into full account the observation by the Prime Minister to which the hon. member alluded, the essence of the problem is one which hon. members have had in mind for many months and, indeed, have debated 21362-561
Inquiries of the Ministry in this House on several occasions. Even if it were argued that a new dimension has been added, the substance of the matter remains the same and, unfortunately, is likely to remain the same for a while yet.
The Standing Order also requires the Chair to pay regard to the probability of the matter being brought before the House within a reasonable time by other means. I should think there will be a number of such opportunities. For these reasons I must rule, with some regrets, that the hon. member's proposed motion cannot be submitted to the House at this time.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: My question is directed to the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. It concerns the right hon. gentleman's comment on Friday accusing the Biafran authorities of using relief agencies to bring in arms shipments, or to screen arms shipments. Can the Prime Minister tell the House whether this extremely partisan denunciation of Colonel Ojukwu indicates that Canada has abandoned its posture of non-involvement or neutrality in connection with the civil war and that the government is now committed to full support of the position of General Gowon and the federal Nigerian authorities?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: We have always taken the position, Mr. Speaker, that General Gowon headed the legitimate government in Nigeria and that Colonel Ojukwu was the leader of a secessionist group. The Canadian government has always managed to stay out of this civil war despite the proddings of both opposition parties to become involved, through the use of our aircraft and so on, on the secessionist side. Our position has not changed, but as observers of this civil war we feel that we have reached the stage at which it is obvious to this government and, perhaps, to more Canadians than previously, that Colonel Ojukwu is really not interested in allowing daylight flights.
The suggestion regarding daylight flights has been put to him in a variety of ways by this government, by the United States govern-

November 17, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry ment and by other governments, not directly but by making available to him ways in which the Red Cross could commence daylight flights. Colonel Ojukwu has never seen his way clear to receive such flights, and that is why we regretfully draw the conclusion that Colonel Ojukwu is less concerned with starving children in Biafra than he is with receiving arms and perhaps scoring political propaganda victories across the world.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The Prime Minister stated that the Biafran authorities are using night flights for the purpose of bringing in arms. I should like to know whether this statement is based on surmise or upon information provided by relief agencies working in the area. Would the Prime Minister indicate from where he gets his information, in view of the fact that our observer teams seem only to have visited that part of Nigeria controlled by the federal authorities. Would the Prime Minister indicate on what source of information he bases these very serious charges?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The source is Colonel
Ojukwu himself and the Biafran authorities, who seem to be intent on cooking up reasons for not accepting daylight flights. The I.C.R.C.-the International Committee of the Red Cross-the Canadian Red Cross, the Canadian government, the United States government and other governments, have been proposing ways in which supplies of food, drugs and other medicines can be brought into Biafra if only the Biafran authorities would allow the airstrip to be used during daytime.
The I.C.R.C. have been negotiating with the Nigerian authorities an agreement whereby the forces of Nigeria would let daylight flights take place for the purpose of bringing in relief supplies. The Canadian government has discussed the possibility of supplying observers on the I.C.R.C. flights to make sure that these flights bring in food and medical supplies only, thereby guaranteeing to the Nigerians that the daylight flights would not be used to bring in arms. Always, for one reason or another, the Biafran authorities have refused these daylight flights. I suggest that if the members of the opposition and other people in this country who are sympathetic to the plight of the Biafran civilian population would only look at the situation objectively they might cease swallowing Biafran propaganda and make it easier for the I.C.R.C. to bring in daylight flights with relief supplies.
IMr. Trudeau.I


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The Prime Minister has indicated that his charge against Colonel Ojukwu is based simply upon surmise, not upon information that in fact the Biafran authorities are using night flights for the purpose in bringing in arms. Am I correct in thinking that the Prime Minister's statement is surmise?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It is not a question of surmise, Mr. Speaker. It is known that night flights do bring in arms to Biafra. There is no surmise involved here.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, may I put this question to the Prime Minister. Leaving General Ojukwu out of the picture and without assessing blame either on the part of Nigeria or Biafra, does the Prime Minister's statement mean that the government has ceased to consider or has turned down requests by Canairelief for assistance in saving the starving people of Biafra, or is he using his view regarding General Ojukwu's propaganda as an excuse for not doing anything about it?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Not at all, Mr. Speaker. We are prepared to consider other ways of getting supplies to the starving people of Biafra. We have suggested other ways, including airdrops, use of helicopters, river crossings and so on. It always happens that the Biafran authorities do not see their way clear to accepting these alternative ways. As I said the other day, the question is not the availability of supplies. It is not as though there is nothing available to send in the way of food and other supplies to Biafra. It is the way of getting them in which poses the problem. The hon. member should not draw the conclusion that we are not interested in making supplies available. We have not yet come up with any more sensible way of doing this than by bringing supplies in by day, and I am surprised that the opposition does not support us on this.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Will the government not consider using the available means now being used, namely, Canairelief and joint churchaid which are actually doing the job now but need the help of this government?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, we have always taken the position that we were supporting the International Red Cross. The International Red Cross did bring in supplies for a long period of time. It is now their judgment that the best way of bringing them in would be by
November 17, 1969
87J

day. We do not want to stand in their way in finding ways of bringing supplies in by day. It is recognized that the amount of supplies which could be brought in would be multiplied manyfold if Colonel Ojukwu would allow daylight flights to take place. If in any event the Red Cross throws up its hands and says nothing else can be done, then we will consider alternate ways of helping the starving population. I repeat that the easiest way of doing so would be to permit daylight flights, and we can see no sensible argument beyond the propaganda one for refusing such daylight flights.


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question.
A few months ago the Prime Minister mentioned that children from Biafra could emigrate to Canada. I would like to ask him whether he has had a favourable response from Canadian families or institutions willing to receive these children and whether his invitation still stands.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: To place my reply within the proper context, Mr. Speaker, I will say that the question had been whether Hercules aircraft transporting foodstuffs to Biafra could also be used to bring children out of that country. I replied that I had no objection to this if accommodation could be found for the children and I suggested that there might possibly be offers of hospitality from volunteer homes.
I must say that I received no offer, nor did I hear of Canadians having volunteered in significant number to keep Biafran children. But on the contrary I heard arguments to the effect that this would not help Biafra, our climate being adverse, and so on.


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, would the Prime Minister be good enough to indicate what relief agencies now supported by the Canadian people and organizations are being used, to use his expression, to bring arms into Biafra?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it is known that air flights during the night are bringing in arms, and it is known that Colonel Ojukwu is refusing daylight flights. It is obvious, and it has also been reported by pilots flying on these runs, that the arms flights and the food flights are intermingled. Therefore I have no identification of the particular planes where
Inquiries of the Ministry arms have been intermingled. We do know this is the way arms get in, under cover of the relief supply flights.


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmonl):: Mr. Speaker, in response to questions by the Leader of the Opposition earlier I wonder whether the Prime Minister was not overstating the case a bit when he indicated that Biafra had come to no agreement on daylight flights? In the course of the many negotiations which have taken place with both Biafra and Nigeria in the last few months there have been times of agreement by one side or the other but never by both sides at once. Perhaps the Prime Minister would agree with that.
Coming to the important part of my question, during the Prime Mimster's speech in the debate in reply to the Throne Speech a few weeks ago he indicated that if the objections now stopping flights into Biafra were not removed the government would be prepared to take further measures. Can he qualify this statement and indicate whether he has received any specific suggestions or how long the government plans to wait before-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: On the second part of the question, I have been discussing with the Secretary of State for External Affairs these future possible steps. He is returning from his trip tonight and I will ask him if he has in mind announcing any further steps within the next little while. The steps have been discussed by the minister and myself. It is a matter of deciding when we can usefully take them.
On the first part of the question, I suppose the best answer would be to refer the House to the White House statement issued on November 12 which disclosed the various steps that the United States government has taken in order to ensure that daylight flights would come into being. They sought and obtained the assurance of the government of Nigeria that no hostile military action would be taken against the I.C.R.C. relief flights. Additionally, and in consultation with other governments including the Canadian government, they were prepared to discuss the supply of impartial observers to accompany such I.C.R.C. aircraft. Third, Ambassador Ferguson was sent by President Nixon to give the Biafrans the specific pledge of the federal government of Nigeria as to the inviolability of the I.C.R.C. daylight relief flights.
874	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry
So, this is not only the Canadian government's view. The United States government's experience as well has been that they have gone to the Biafran authorities with reasonable propositions for bringing in daylight flights to Uli airport and the Biafrans have said no. They have given military reasons for this. They give the reason that they do not want other countries to know where Uli airstrip is situated because it would harm the military effort, the effort they are making to bring in arms by night, so-


An hon. Member:: This is a war.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Of course it is a war. But the question is, do Colonel Ojukwu and the opposition think that arms are more important than food for starving children?


An hon. Member:: What do you think?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The point has been reached where we have to make up our minds; otherwise we are using the starving children to-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I wonder at this point whether the purpose envisioned by the proposed motion of the hon. member for Fundy-Royal has not been at least partly served. In any event, before going to another subject I understand the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands has a further supplementary. Perhaps this supplementary might be allowed and then we will go on to another subject.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Prime Minister whether the Canadian government has been asked for financial assistance by Canairelief in order to fly medical and food supplies into Biafra and whether that request for financial assistance has been refused? If so, has it been refused because the government insists that these flights be daylight flights or is the government refusing it because it considers the Red Cross to be the only agency that can do this work despite the fact that the Red Cross has given up this project since last June?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I cannot speak of any recent request. There may have been some; I do not know. But if there have been any recent requests I would venture to say we have not refused them flatly. It is true that earlier in past months we did take the position that the International Red Cross was the proper vehicle for bringing in the supplies because the International Red Cross was recognized as a non-partisan body, the Nigeri-

DEBATES	November 17, 1969
an government had authorized such supplies and that it was therefore natural for the Canadian government to use this vehicle. Now, since it appears as though the International Red Cross itself is in difficulty in bringing in supplies, I repeat that we are looking at alternate means.
I do want to make it clear that there is no suspicion on our part that Canairelief or the churches are effectively bringing in arms. That is perhaps why the blues were changed without my knowledge-


An hon. Member:: Ah ha!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, ah ha-to replace the words "under the cover of" by "screening". There was no intention on my part-and I hope the House understood that-to indicate that the night flights of Canairelief were actually bringing in arms. What I did indicate was that the night flights of food supplies were serving as a cover for arms supplies, and I still stand by this statement.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I have a further supplementary question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There are other hon. members who have supplementary questions. I suggest to the House that the time has come to move on to another subject. Hopefully we might return to this subject matter if there is time at the end of the question period. Perhaps the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands has a question on another subject.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs but I see he has left the chamber. Therefore I will direct it to the Prime Minister. I see the minister coming in now; he must be emerging from his cocoon. May I ask the minister when he expects to report to the House on his department's investigation into the recent increases in the price of steel and automobiles, or report on the results of the investigation by the Prices and Incomes Commission?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: My understanding of the inquiry being conducted by the Prices
November 17, 1969	COMMONS
and Incomes Commission is that they are now engaged in it and hope to report as quickly as possible.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the minister anticipate that this report will be made fairly soon, and will the report of the commission be made public or will the minister himself report to the House on the basis of the information he receives from the commission?


Stanley Ronald Basford: There is no doubt that the report will be made public.


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the fact that the consumer price index rose again in October and is now 4.4 per cent higher than in October, 1968, the rise having been brought about by recent increases in the prices of gasoline, refrigerators, hydro, housing, clothing and health care in the three provinces without medicare-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member will recognize that this is not a question but a statement. Last week I took the liberty of bringing to the attention of hon. members the fact that questions being posed by them sounded more like statements than questions. Perhaps hon. members may like to bear this in mind.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: I should like to ask whether the minister or any of his officials had consultations with the 25 manufacturing industries in Canada that signed contracts in the third quarter involving wage gains averaging 9.3 per cent before they did so?


Stanley Ronald Basford: No, Mr. Speaker, but, as I pointed out to the House before, the Prices and Incomes Commission is endeavouring to work out a package of restraint with employers, trade unions, landlords and all the economic interests in the country to pledge themselves to a certain program of restraint.


Mr. James A. McGrath (Si. John's East):: have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister tell us if he has had consultations with provincial authorities in this regard and is he able to report on such consultations?


Stanley Ronald Basford: I have not but the Prices and Incomes Commission has.


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: My
supplementary question is with regard to the
DEBATES	875
Inquiries of the Ministry general policy of restraint. In view of the minister's statement in the House last week about a specific increase in Shell Oil prices, is the minister prepared now to give his views about the reported increase in nickel prices in the world market as a result of the settlement at Inco which was confirmed over the weekend, as he indicated on November 12 he might be prepared to do?


Stanley Ronald Basford: The latest report I have-this was why I was out of the House a moment ago-is that under the Ontario labour law some voting is still taking place, and I think any comment from me at this time would be inappropriate.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. When the voting is concluded can we expect the minister to make a statement in the House in the same vein, depending on how he wants to state the case, about both the Inco problem and the Shell Oil problem?


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaloon-Biggar):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask the minister whether he will instruct the Prices and Incomes Commission to investigate the effect that these increases in oil and steel are going to have on costs in the farming sector which has been unable to increase its prices to consumers?


Stanley Ronald Basford: The Prices and Incomes Commission is examining the whole question of increases in steel prices and, I am sure, will take into account any effect they may have on the tremendously important farming community in Canada. With regard to oil, all the companies have not implemented price increases.



INFLATION-INQUIRY AS TO REPORT ON ACTIVITIES OF PRICES AND INCOMES COMMISSION

Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Has-iings):: I have a supplementary question which I should like to address to the minister. Last week, in answer to an inquiry, the minister stated that he would confer with the chairman of the Prices and Incomes Commission as to the desirability of the minister making a statement in the House on motions about the progress which the commission has made in persuading management to keep down prices and labour leaders to keep down wage

November 17, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry demands. As a result of those conversations with the chairman, is the minister now prepared to make such a statement on motions?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Yes, Mr. Speaker. As a result of the hon. member's question I discussed the idea of making an additional statement in the House with the chairman of the commission who felt that at the moment such a statement would not add to the situation, but the chairman did hope to be able to make further statements as time went on as to the progress that he and the commission will be making.


George Harris Hees: I have a further supplementary question for the Prime Minister. As voluntary methods now appear not to be effective in preventing prices and wages from rising, is the Prime Minister planning to introduce the other measures which he indicated the government would be prepared to introduce if voluntary methods proved to be ineffective?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, we are planning in the sense that we believe in long-range planning.


George Harris Hees: I have a further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that we believe in short-range planning also, is the Prime Minister going to do what he said he was going to do-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



PUBLIC BUILDINGS


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Public Works. I gave him notice of the question last week and I understand that with your consent, Your Honour, he is prepared to answer it today. Can the minister state if any preparations are under way for a new federal building in Vancouver, and is consideration being given to the interests of the adjacent "Project 200" property?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This question should be put on the Order Paper. The hon. member will appreciate, I am sure, that an exception cannot be made with regard to this question on a very important building in his constituency because such questions would be asked every day. The question, therefore, should be placed on the Order Paper.


Harold Edward Winch: Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.



IMMIGRATION


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, would the minister consult his colleague so that a statement can be made in the House concerning the progress that may have been made by the intergovernmental committee on immigration matters, particularly with regard to immigration curbs placed by United States legislation on Canadians entering that country, and also indicating what kind of representations have been made to the United States government with respect to this problem?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I will be glad to discuss this question with my colleague and have him report on it.



PRODUCTION GUIDELINES FOR WESTERN FARMERS

Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the fact that western farmers are being urged to adjust their future grain production to potential markets, is the government giving consideration to issuing production guidelines before the crop is planted next spring?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: In a few days there will be what we call an outlook conference in Ottawa involving the Department of Agriculture, all the provincial Departments of Agriculture and representatives of many farm organizations, at which time I hope some guidelines will be forthcoming from that conference along the lines suggested by the hon. member.


George Robson Muir: I have supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, in regard to guidelines for farm production. Is it the intention of the minister to report on the recent meeting in Rome on world food supplies and what markets we can expect will be available to agricultural producers in Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the minister is to make a statement it should be made on motions.


George Robson Muir: As a further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, will the minister be making a statement on motions in regard to the meeting in Rome?
November 17, 1969


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I will consider that, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. A. B. Douglas (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Agriculture in connection with the forthcoming outlook conference. Will the recommendations of that conference be any more reliable than the ones made in January, 1967?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question is argumentative.



OILSEEDS-MOVEMENT TO MARKET POSITION

Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the fact that market reports at the end of last week showed that farmers and exporters are still frustrated by lack of ability to move oilseeds into market positions, can he give the House some assurance that steps are being taken to see that flax and rapeseed can move to market outlets, particularly for export?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. We are doing everything we can. The Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Lang) replied a few days ago that some of the allegations made in the press respecting some of these oilseeds were not true, or at least they were not completely factual. But, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that the channels also have to be kept open, at least to some extent, for the people who have wheat, oats and barley to sell.



PESTICIDES


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: While I am on my feet, Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might be permitted to reply to a question addressed to me last Friday respecting the disposal of stocks of DDT because of the restrictions placed on the use of this pesticide. I shall be very brief. The program that was announced was one of planned reduction in the use of DDT and some uses are still permitted. We expect that stocks of this material will be directed to those uses still permitted. Finally, I want to say that the preliminary survey by my department of total stocks of DDT in Canada indicates that they are much less than some of the reports in the press would indicate.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of
Inquiries of the Ministry Agriculture whether the survey included stocks of DDT held by government departments, and whether or not there is any intention to continue to call for tenders for the sale of these stocks to the public?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Yes, the survey of stocks included them. In reply to the second part of the question, I will have to check.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. I apologize for directing it to him but in the absence of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and of the Secretary of State for External Affairs I have no option because there is some urgency involved. Will representatives of the Eskimos of Canada be present at the meetings of the International Congress on Arctic Development and the Future of Eskimo Societies, to be held in France next week?


Mr. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this question as notice.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, since the Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs has taken the question as notice, perhaps he might also take a supplementary question as notice. If the answer to the first question is yes, can we be told who or what groups of Eskimos will be representing Canada?


VIOLENT DISTURBANCES
Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: I wish to direct a question ot the Minister of Justice.
Has he received representations from individuals or organizations asking that steps be taken by his department in connection with the bylaw adopted by the city of Montreal to ban demonstrations?


Mr. Speaker:: I think that one or several similar questions were asked last week.

November 17, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry
CRIMINAL CODE	announce the plans of the federal government
PHEVOST COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS in relation to future development of the RESPECTING GAMBLING	townsite of Churchill?


Mr.   Fernand-E. Leblanc@Laurier: I should like to put a question to the Minister of Justice.
Is he acquainted with the fifth part of the final report of the Prevost Commission in the province of Quebec concerning the Criminal Code? If so, has his attention been held by some recommendations to turn gambling into a social and legal operation?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: am acquainted with it, Mr. Speaker, but I have not read it yet.


MANPOWER
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Darimouih-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Can he indicate what steps his department is taking in connection with what appears to be widespread hiring discrimination on account of age in connection with the large lay-offs which took place some weeks ago at Fairey Aviation?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I would need more details before I could make a sensible answer. I think the subject of fair standards is under the administration of the Department of Labour. In this particular case it may be under the jurisdiction of the provincial government.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I may direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Labour. Would he, in co-operation with his colleagues and anyone else who might be involved, take a look at the practice of firms in the Halifax-Dartmouth area of rejecting for employment, simply because they happen to be over 45 or 50 years of age, long-term employees laid off by Fairey Aviation?


PUBLIC WORKS
Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Can he advise the House when he may be in a position to


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, I think that would depend entirely on our relations with the province of Manitoba. Discussions are now under way with provincial officials.


Robert Simpson: As a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, can the minister say whether or not he has been able to present to cabinet the submission which his department hoped to have ready by November 15?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That question is not in order.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. It arises out of reports of the increase in the unemployment rate, particularly in the disadvantaged areas of Canada, reports which the Minister of Finance appears to have admitted on a television program last night. In view of this trend, can the minister tell the House what specific programs, if any, his department has evolved to deal with increasing unemployment in the disadvantaged areas of Canada this winter?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Again I would think this is the kind of statement which should be made on motions. The question might be asked in those terms and the minister might care to reply.


David Lewis: I accept your comment, Mr. Speaker, and indeed could not criticize it. May I ask the minister whether in the next few days he will make a statement on motions to the House on plans he has, if he has any, to deal with unemployment in the disadvantaged areas this winter?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is aware, I believe, of the programs I administer and by the end of the month, as I did last month, I shall table in the House the list of applications received and approved by the department regarding the settlement of new industries. The hon. member will then see the improvement in that field, improvement which will certainly reduce part of the
November 17, 1969	COMMONS
unemployment now existing in the underprivileged regions.
[English\


David Lewis: Do I gather from the minister's answer that there are no programs to deal specifically with growing unemployment in the disadvantaged areas?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, that is precisely why my department exists.


James Aloysius McGrath: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Because of the importance of the growing unemployment rate to the disadvantaged areas, would the minister give consideration to discussing with his colleague, the government House leader, the possibility of referring this matter to the Standing Committee on Regional Development?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, that is definitely something that I am ready to discuss with the House leader.


POST OFFICE
[Stage Direction]
DECEMBER SATURDAY DELIVERY Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough): Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to that constitutional diplomat, the Postmaster General. As it has apparently been found necessary to resume Saturday mail delivery in order to move the heavy volume of Christmas mail, could the minister advise if he is giving consideration to reinstating regular Saturday mail service in order to speed up mail delivery throughout the year and possibly diminish heavy overtime costs at Christmas?
Mr. Speaker:: I have to suggest to the hon. member that essentially he is repeating a question which he has already asked. I would not think that the circumstance mentioned in his question of today changes the situation. I would think that the question could be put on the order paper.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, may I address a question
DEBATES	879
Inquiries of the Ministry to the Minister of Justice. Has the minister's great desire to see justice carried out overcome his desire to avoid the disclosure of an unsavoury association with the government and as a result does he intend now to make a second application for the extradition of Hal Banks, as suggested by the United States State Department?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to suggest to the hon. member that the question as asked is not in order.



ALLEGED INEFFECTIVENESS OF PRESCRIPTION PRODUCT-INQUIRY AS TO STATEMENT

Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Can he say how soon he will be making his statement on the alleged ineffectiveness of certain prescription drugs, which on October 22 he said he would make on motions at the first opportunity?


John Carr Munro: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The statement is about ready; I hope to make it this week.



PUBLIC SERVICE


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Was the Secretary of State extending government policy beyond present practice when he said, as reported, at the opening of the Public Service language school that some units within the Public Service will eventually use French as the working language?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I have not seen the statement, Mr. Speaker. I will look at it.



PENITENTIARIES


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, may I address a question to the Solicitor General. It relates to the outstanding work being done by the Moncton Jaycees in connection with the establishment of a Jaycee unit in Dorchester Penitentiary and their work with day parolees, of which the minister is aware, I believe, because of his own telegram of congratulations last Saturday

November 17, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry night. Could the minister inform the House whether this kind of excellent community involvement is to be extended to other institutions of incarceration across the country and whether assistance will be given to the Moncton Jaycees in obtaining a half-way house for more work of the kind they are doing?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This question should be debated at the time of adjournment.



BILINGUALISM AND BICULTURALISM


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Some time ago I asked the Prime Minister when we could expect volume 3 of the B and B Commission report. He undertook to look into the matter and report to the House.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I did make inquiries. As I recall, the third volume will be in two parts. The first part, volume 3A, is being printed now and will soon be ready for distribution, whereas volume 3B is being prepared for printing and will be presented to the government as soon as completed. Therefore the one will be available very soon and the other, soon.



OFFICIAL REPORT-CHANGE IN ANSWER OF PRIME MINISTER

Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wish to refer briefly to a point of order that arose during the question period. It relates to the answer given by the Prime Minister on page 824 of Hansard to a question on Biafra. I submit that the words actually spoken by the Prime Minister were "to bring in arms supplies." Those words were changed in Hansard to read: "to screen shipments of arms."
The change in Hansard was such that an entirely different interpretation could be taken from the answer. An entirely different view became apparent from the wording printed in Hansard, and the words printed were not the ones spoken by the Prime Minister.
During his reply the Prime Minister stated that there was a change but that it was not made with his authority. The point of order I raise is: Who is entitled to change Hansard
[Mr. MacDonald (Egmont).l
other than the hon. member who spoke the words? If the Prime Minister himself did not make the change, I believe it should not have been made by anyone on his behalf. I think this is fundamental to our procedure. My second point is: To what extent can any change be made in Hansard which would alter completely the sense of an answer that has been given? I raise these questions because the Prime Minister may wish to expand upon the statement he made earlier.
I do think this question should bear some consideration. If the Prime Minister did not make this change and if he admits that it was made, it ought to be stated who made it and on what authority. If the Prime Minister would clarify this point I think it would be of some assistance for future reference. If he is unable to do so I would appreciate it if Your Honour would give consideration to this matter and decide just who, other than the hon. member who speaks the words, is authorized to make such changes.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, Mr. Speaker, essentially the answer is that the change did not change the sense.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Essentially, the statement could be interpreted in two ways. The statement was that the Biafran authorities are using the night flights. I said that the difficulty with relief flights is based on the fact that the Biafran authorities do not permit daylight flights and that they are using the night flights of relief supplies in order to bring in shipments of arms, which statement I still stand by. If, as I explained earlier, they are using other night flights in order to bring in shipments of arms, then obviously they are not using Canairelief flights to bring in arms but are using the night flights for food supplies and so on in order that they may be able to bring in arms supplies.
This is a perfectly valid statement by which I stand. Obviously it could have been interpreted to mean that all night flights were being used to bring in arms. It is because of this ambiguity that someone in my office, who has authority to correct my grammar sometimes and put in commas and clarify my statements when that does not change the sense has obviously put in the words, "screen shipments-"


David Lewis: But that is not the question.
November 17, 1969


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That is the question-whether the change changes the sense of the words.
1 assure the House that I do not spend my nights reading the Hansard blues. I have better things to do.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

[Stage Direction]
PROCEDURE WITH RESPECT TO BILL C-3 Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council): Mr. Speaker, prior to Your Honour calling order No. 5 for consideration, may I raise a point of order with respect to today's procedure in dealing with the bill. There have been discussions among representatives of the parties with regard to limiting the debate on today's business under Standing Order 75a to the present days sitting. Unfortunately, unanimous agreement of the representatives of the parties could not be obtained. I wonder, nevertheless, if the House would be prepared to consider making a special order confining debate on that bill to the present day's sitting. We would limit debate on second reading of the bill to today and, as a condition thereof, suspend private members' hour for today.
If there is general agreement I would propose that the House make an order that at 10 p.m. today Mr. Speaker shall interrupt proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the motion for second reading and reference of Bill C-3, to amend the Criminal Code, to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, and that for that purpose proceedings on private members' business shall be suspended for this day. Perhaps the House might be prepared to make that order.
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, we of this party are agreeable to that. We can put forward our position in that period of time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I say that we were also prepared to agree to this under Standing Order 75a. Since that was not possible, we hope there may be general agreement in the House to do what the minister has now proposed with the understanding, of course, that we shall postpone private members' hour and thus have a full day's debate on this bill.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, on principle, we cannot accept standing order 75a or 75b, nor any such rule.
Criminal Code
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


John Napier Turner: that Bill C-3, to amend the Criminal Code, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill, which received first reading on October 27, proposes a number of significant amendments to the Criminal Code. I think hon. members on both sides of the House will concede that the bill has enjoyed the benefit of a long legislative history. As far back as January, 1965, the then Minister of Justice, the Hon. Guy Fav-reau, whose passing we all regret, announced the appointment of a special committee to study and report upon the problems related to the dissemination of varieties of hate propaganda and hate literature in this country.
It is a matter of record that a very distinguished committee, under the chairmanship of the then Dean of Law at McGill University, Maxwell Cohen, studied at length the questions relating to hate literature and hate propaganda. In addition to Dean Cohen the following persons comprised the committee: Dr. J. A. Corry, Principal, Queens University; l'abbe Gerard Dion, Faculty of Social Sciences, Laval University; Mr. Saul Hayes, Q.C., Executive Vice-President, Canadian Jewish Congress; Professor Mark R. MacGui-gan, Association Professor of Law, University of Toronto, now the hon. member for Wind-sor-Walkerville; Mr. Shane MacKay, Executive Editor, Winnipeg Free Press and Professor Pierre Elliott Trudeau, as he then was, Associate Professor of Law, University of Montreal.
Following the committee's report in November, 1965, the bill was introduced as Bill S-49. This was during the 27th parliament, 1966-67. On November 7, that bill was given first reading and on March 20 it was read a second time on division in the other place and referred to a special joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons for consideration. The 12 members of this House nominated to serve on that joint committee were Messrs. Baldwin, Forest, Klein, Gauthier, Leboe, Lewis, Mandziuk, Mongrain,

November 17, 1963
Criminal Code
Nasserden, Reid, Tolmie and Walker. However, the session ended on May 8, 1967 without Bill S-49 being further considered.
In the second session of the 27th parliament the provisions of Bill S-49 were introduced as Bill S-5. That bill also received first and second reading and on November 21, 1967 and was referred to a special committee of the Senate, which had already been appointed on November 2, 1967. The special committee of the Senate met and heard evidence on three occasions early in 1968. I believe the dates were February 14 and 29 and March 7. However, the 27th parliament came to an end on April 23, before the bill could be further considered.
The bill was again introduced in the same form as previous bills in the first session of the 28th parliament, as Bill S-21, was again given first and second readings and referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. The standing committee held 11 public meetings, heard 32 witnesses and received representations from some 17 organizations. The Senate committee presented its report, which was adopted on June 17, 1969, and on the same day the Senate read the bill a third time on division and passed it. The bill was given first reading in the House of Commons on June 19, 1969.
It should perhaps be mentioned here that Bill S-21, as passed by the Senate, was amended in certain respects. By way of general comment only, and without getting into the details of the bill, by way of a trespass upon the rules of this House, the offence of advocating genocide was modified so as to include two acts and not five. In addition, that offence was made referable to an "identifiable group" which is to be tested or determined by reference to "religion" as well as by the other tests of colour, race or ethnic origin. The definition of an identifiable group was changed by the addition of the term "religion". In addition, a new definition was added to safeguard freedom of expression on a religious subject and this addition was tied in with the addition of "religion" as one of the tests of an identifiable group. The requirement of the consent of the Attorney General was added in relation to the offences of advocating or promoting genocide, of wilful promotion of hatred and contempt and also in relation to the in rem forfeiture provisions. I pointed out that the present Bill C-3 is in exactly the same form as Bill S-21 which received first reading in the House of Commons last June 19, as I previously mentioned.

At this point I would like to summarize briefly the main effects of this bill. If the biff is enacted by parliament, it will create three new offences: First, the offence of advocating or promoting genocide; second, the offence of public incitement of hatred and contempt likely to lead to a breach of the peace; third, wilful promotion of hatred or contempt. In addition, the bill provides for in rem proceedings that will permit the seizure and forfeiture of hate propaganda publications.
The bill defines genocide so as to include two specific acts, namely the killing of members of any identifiable group or the deliberate inflicting of conditions of life calculated to bring about the physical destruction of an identifiable group. The offences of public incitement, of hatred and contempt and wilful promotion of hatred and contempt are constituted by "communicating statements." "Communicating statements" is broadly defined so as to include all forms of audible or visual communication.
The consent of the Attorneys-General of the provinces will be required for prosecution of the offences of advocating genocide and wilful promotion of hatred. It will also be required for the institution of the in rem proceedings. However, prosecution of the public incitement offence, that is to say public incitement of hatred and contempt likely to lead to a breach of the public order or peace, does not require the consent of the Attorney-General. Obviously, if the probable effect would be calculated to involve the public order, then the reason for requiring the consent of the Attorney-General would not be as pertinent since the essence of the offence is the likelihood of a breach of the peace.
While no statutory defence is provided in the case of the public incitement offence, in the case of the wilful promotion offence, three statutory defences are provided. The first is related to the expression of opinion on a religious subject. The second and third can be regarded as the standard defamatory libel defences of truth or, alternatively, reasonable belief in the truth of the statement combined with public interest in the statement.
I am of course fully aware of the significant objections that have been taken against this bill by a number of very prominent persons who are as vitally concerned as the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and I are with the problem of civil rights. Some of these persons have said that the bill is not necessary and that the criminal law process should not be used for this purpose. In the alternative, they say that the provisions of the Criminal Code
November 17. 1969

Criminal Code
are sufficient to deal with the problems as they now stand.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Would the hon. gentleman answer a question at this stage?


John Napier Turner: I will entertain a question at the end of what I have to say; I shall not be long.
Notwithstanding the very cogent arguments which have been advanced against the bill both in the Senate and publicly, the government, after a good deal of analysis, accepts as sound the conclusions of the special committee under the chairmanship of Dean Cohen regarding the present inadequate state of the criminal law in Canada. I would mention in this regard the conclusions set out at page 49 of the report to the effect, and I quote:
-it is evident that the Criminal Code, even on the widest interpretation, does little or nothing to protect groups from the evils of hate propaganda.
At the committee stage, if this bill is referred to a committee, we shall undoubtedly wish to consider this measure in detail as it affects civil rights and the purposes for which it is intended. In the circumstances, the bill is intended to deal with a special problem which can arise in our society because of excessive reactions to identifiable groups within our community. It is my belief that the present bill treads wisely and warily in this difficult and frequently controversial area of human relations.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: had intended to ask the hon. gentleman a question, Mr. Speaker, but perhaps I was a little hasty. He has, in fact, answered the question I had in mind, though I may say I do not agree with his views.
The first part of the bill, which the minister outlined so carefully, makes it a crime for anyone to advocate or promote genocide. The second part of the measure has to do with incitement of hatred or contempt against an identifiable group. I had been about to ask the minister whether he does not feel that the Criminal Code did not already cover that part.


John Napier Turner: I would be prepared to meet arguments on that point in committee. Briefly, however, we feel that the provisions of the Code, as they stand, are inadequate to meet the purposes of the three clauses of this bill and that it would be appropriate to spell out Parliament's intention more specifically.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Thank you.
I may say at the outset that we support the principle of the bill. I do not think there will be any argument from our side as far as the first part of the bill is concerned, that is to say, the part which states that anyone who advocates or promotes genocide is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for five years. Nevertheless, some questions arise with reference to the concluding clauses, and this is why their provisions will have to be studied with extreme care.
The rationale behind this bill, it seems to us, is that on the balance of public convenience and inconvenience the state should use the criminal law to curtail the right of freedom of speech and the right to privacy in order to prevent the defamation of identifiable groups on the grounds that such defamation might:
1. intimidate or cause mental anguish to a member of such a group; 2. foster a public opinion which, in a suitable combination of sociological, economic and political circumstances, might enable a State to commit genocide against such a group; and
3.	in a particular instance, be likely to cause a disturbance in a public place either by inciting violence against a group or violence by the group against the defamer.
I think we need to look at history in order to understand the background of this legislation. In our own generation, in our own lifetime, we have witnessed what is probably the most brutal, barbaric and inhuman treatment of a certain race, of people belonging to a certain religion, in the course of which they were virtually wiped out in several states in Europe. With this in mind, one is bound to support those provisions of the bill which deal with the subject of genocide.
Until the establishment of the United Nations, civil libertarians concentrated their efforts on attaining and enshrining the fundamental freedoms of speech, press, religion, assembly and association. Since then, and to a large extent because of the influence through the United Nations of the newly independent countries of Africa and Asia, increasing emphasis has been placed on the establishment of the right of everyone to equal treatment, regardless of race, religion, colour, sex, national or ethnic origin.
Here in Canada, I feel, we can take some pride in having to a large extent achieved these aims. This emphasis on the right to equal treatment has been asserted not only against governments and public institutions,

November 17, 1969
Criminal Code
but also against private individuals and organizations. The focus has been on removing the overt acts of discrimination such as the denial of civic and economic equality, and the denial of equal access to employment and accommodation. However, more recently it has been asserted that one of the major lessons we should have learned from the Hitler era was that the ideal of an egalitarian society may be impossible to achieve when the dissemination of racist ideas is permitted. The promotion of hatred against identifiable groups in our society, even if the number of hate propagandists is small, constitutes a danger to a modern democratic society. There has been advocacy of restricting such vilification, even if this is achieved only by restricting certain basic rights of expression.
I do not think there is anything in the Code which directly covers the first part of the bill, though, of course, once an overt act takes place, committed by any person or group of persons, it would, under the Code, constitute murder. Let me draw attention to section 166, which deals with the spreading of false news. This is to be found in Crankshaw's 1959 edition-the latest edition-at page 227. We read:
Every one who wilfully publishes a statement, tale or news that he knows is false and that causes or is likely to cause injury or mischief to a public interest is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for two years.
This is the old offence under common law, prosecutions for which seem to have fallen out of fashion. In 1778 there was a case of this kind in which the defendant was indicted for having unlawfully, wickedly and maliciously published false news whereby discord might grow between the King and his subjects or the great men of the realm, by publishing and placarding a printed paper or notice falsely announcing that an order-incouncil had been made by the King proclaiming war with France. This is an old case, referred to as Scott's case; it is to be found in the New Newgate Calendar. It has been decided in Canada that publication of a placard stating that settlers from the United States are not wanted in Canada is an injury to the public interest and that the person wilfully and knowingly publishing such false statements was guilty of spreading false news. This is the case of R. v. Hoaglin. It has further been held that an accused who has been acquitted on a charge of publishing a seditious libel cannot afterward be prosecuted in respect of the same publication of spreading false news and that the words "whereby

injury or mischief is occasioned to any public interest" in the latter section must contemplate a seditious intention, since the section is included under the general heading "Seditious Offences".
a (3.20 p.m.)
So, the subject is at least partially covered by the Code at the present time. One of the complaints which has been received is that the bill does not really follow the Cohen report. The minister himself told us that when the measure was before the Senate many people attacked it because in their view it would destroy the greatest civil right enjoyed by any democracy, namely, freedom of speech. This is something at which the committee must take a serious look.
As I pointed out at the beginning, I want to make it very clear that we agree with the principle contained in the first part of the bill without any reservation whatever, particularly in view of what happened in Europe during our generation.
However, I should like to quote from an article in the Globe and Mail that deals with a matter that the committee must approach with great care and study. This article deals with a position that was taken by many witnesses who appeared before the Senate committee, people from across Canada who had distinguished themselves not only as lawyers but in the field of sociology and other fields. This article reads in part:
There is every indication that a Canadian hate bill would have the same effect.
That is a reference to what happened in Great Britain, where the legislation, instead of helping the people it was intended to serve, worked against them.
It could become one of the most iniquitous and oppressive pieces of legislation in the books. There are several volatile issues in Canada. Language is one: religious differences between Protestants and Catholics constitute another. Walk into an urban renewal area in almost any city and you'll find residents who are trigger-tense. The greatest potential the bill has is for backfiring.
In other words, the bill may work against the group that we are trying to protect.
The ludicrous aspect of the hate bill is that the laws of criminal libel provide the same protection against dissemination of hate while, at the same time, offering safeguards to freedom of speech and guarantees against unjust prosecution that the hate bill doesn't have.
Too often the bill is characterized by its supporters as legislating against the virulent kind of hate that leads to genocide. That is a false picture. The bill contains a section making it a crime to advocate or promote genocide.
November 17, 1969

That is on all fours with what I say about the principle of this bill.
The remaining sections deal with inciting or promoting hatred or contempt of any group that can be identified by race, colour, religion or ethnic origin.
If I may just pause there. As the minister knows, the bill that was before the Senate made no provisions regarding religious groups, but this has been remedied by the new bill. I think this change resulted from the evidence given by the witnesses who appeared before the Senate committee, particularly by the Very Reverend Ernest Marshall Howse of the United Church. The Globe and Mail article continues:
There's a world of difference between promoting contempt and advocating genocide.
The widespread concern expressed during the three years that the bill has been contemplated should demand second thoughts from members of parliament, now that the bill has been introduced in the House.
These second thoughts are going to be shared by the committee. Let me tell the minister that we have a good standing committee. We work well together. Members of all parties generally agree with most amendments that are made to the Criminal Code. I hope that in this case the committee will be able to hear evidence, as did the Senators, regarding incitement of hate and contempt with which the second part of the bill deals.
At this point, may I bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker, a matter of concern to those on this side of the House. I refer to a particular philosophy that is becoming increasingly evident on the part of the government. In fact, the minister himself touched on this matter when he addressed the Canadian Bar Association and talked about placing control over wire tapping in the hands of the Attorney General of Canada and the Attorneys General of the various provinces.
According to the amendment contained in clause 1, no proceeding for an offence under Section 267a shall be instituted without the consent of the Attorney General. That is a proceeding connected with genocide. The same provision is made in the proposed section 267b which deals with public incitement of hatred.
My fear about this provision is this. Take the case of a group of persons who are charged under this section because the Attorney General of Canada or the Attorney General of a province thinks they are committing genocide or inciting hatred. Another group of persons may act in identical fashion, but the
Criminal Code
Attorney General, in his own good graces, for political or other reasons, does not feel they are inciting hatred or committing genocide, and thus no charges are laid.
This is a situation that could occur and I submit that these provisions establish a very dangerous precedent. If these provisions are accepted, then the Attorney General of Canada and the Attorneys General of the provinces are given too much power. After all, such appointments are made by the Prime Minister of Canada and the Premiers of the provinces. Basically, these appointees are responsible within their own jurisdictions for the administration of justice in Canada. Nevertheless, they are elected by political parties, and to that extent are partisan. They are appointed by cabinets and are political animals. They are appointed by governments to administer justice as well as they can. I also suggest that far too much power is given the Minister of Justice and the Attorneys General of the various provinces in the matter of freedom of speech, which is one of the great civil liberties of any democracy.
We are all aware of the fact that the present Minister of Justice will not always be minister, and I do not question his integrity here. But I repeat that certain groups may be charged under the first part of the bill or under the second part simply because the Attorney General of Canada or the Attorneys General of the provinces feel a charge should be laid, whereas another group performing identical acts may be let off the hook. This is one of the first problems, as far as I can see, with which the committee will have to come to grips when it begins study of the bill.


John Napier Turner: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Certainly.


John Napier Turner: Is the
hon. member aware that the provision about which he is talking, namely the necessity for obtaining the consent of the Attorney General to institute a proceeding, was introduced into the bill as a result of an amendment made in the other place?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I do not question that at all. However, I am not making my arguments in the other place. I have not got there yet and many of us never will. I am talking about the bill that has been presented to the House of Commons. If this bill receives second reading, goes to committee and returns unchanged, then in view of the way Liberals vote it will

November 17, 1969
Criminal Code
receive third reading and become the law of Canada.
I should like to make reference at this point to the Cohen report. The bill does not follow that report. I should like to refer to what Professor Walter Tarnopolsky had to say when writing for the University of British Columbia "Law Review".


John Napier Turner: Would my friend give me the year?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The 1967 edition, page 55. He said:
If the wording of the Cohen Committee had been adopted, although it would probably not change our substantive law, at least we could be more certain that the crime of genocide was an act intended to bring about physical destruction, put out of existence, take the lives of, put to death, kill, etc. the members of a specifically defined "readily identifiable group". If parliament were to adopt the wording of section 267A, would it not thereby make it a crime to advocate abortions to "destroy" the "group of persons" who could be described as "seriously deformed babies"? I do not suggest that one should advocate such destruction, but are we prepared to make advocacy of such acts an indictable offence punishable with imprisonment for up to five years? Could not Christian Scientists and Jehovah's Witnesses argue that the act of declaring their children to be wards of the court for the purpose of giving them blood transfusions is an act committed with intent to "destroy" them as a group, i.e. "forcibly transferring children of the group to another group"? Could not the Sons of Freedom Doukhobour argue that acts like transferring the Freedomite children from the control of their parents to the control of a group of public officials, is an act committed with intent to "destroy" their way of life, i.e. to "destroy in whole or in part any group of persons?"
The Cohen committee stressed that the definition of genocide should be restricted to "the annihilation of identifiable groups for no other reason than they are what they are". The committee did not want to include advocacy and promotion of revolution against constituted authority because it was prepared to concede "as a philosophical argument that there may be a genuine social interest in not totally excluding advocacy and promotion of violence against state authorities-"
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
Of course, we see today that the protest movement has grown as never before, and States are now accepting open protests. There is no doubt about the fact that democracy is working in the streets. That is why there has been some criticism of the right to freedom of speech, to speak one's mind. There has been some criticism of what is taking place today in a city in Canada. There have been similar protests to those that took place in the United States and, whether or not you agree with those who are protesting they were quiet, orderly and peaceful. This right to protest

constitutes one form of freedom of speech. Of course, freedom of speech means not only the right to speak, but also the right to be silent. That, in itself, is freedom of speech.
Let me once again emphasize that we are in favour of the first part of the bill. We are in favour of the principle of the bill because the principle is that, on a balance of public convenience and inconvenience, the State should use the criminal law to curtail the right to freedom of speech and the right to privacy in order to prevent the crime of genocide. We are on all fours in that respect.
We must examine very carefully the second part of the bill, because in a democratic State one of the most important civil liberties is the right to freedom of speech. The Globe and Mail states that the ludicrous aspect of the hate bill is that the laws of criminal libel provide the same protection. I should like to hear witnesses appearing before the committee set out fully the law with regard to that particular subject as it now exists in the Criminal Code. I am sure the members of this party want to be assured that this Provision is not a duplication or an extension of a Provision which is already contained in the law. If it is an extension, I should like to know that it is not really taking away freedom of speech, particularly in a democratic State such as we have.
I also hope that the committee members will study very carefully the submissions made by all the witnesses at the Senate hearings so there will be no duplication. We should have a look at what Professor Scott had to say as reported at page 202 of the proceedings of the Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, number 9. He was called as a witness and dealt with this particular aspect of freedom of speech as related to these sections. He said:
There are two positions. We had crisis legislation in 1919 following the Winnipeg strike, which was a crisis. In the other case, the "Padlock Act", there was no crisis at all; just general legislation against propagating Communism, in 1938.
Then we come to that great legal decade of the fifties when the Supreme Court of Canada enlarged the concept of human rights in a series of magnificent cases, of which this country should be proud. I will mention only a few. There was the Boucher case, which defined the law of sedition and eliminated precisely the factor this bill would re-introduce. That is why I say that this bill is retrograde. The law has advanced and this will take it back.
Then, there was a question asked by Senator Phillips who said:
Would you develop that a little more, Professor Scott, for a few moments?
November 17, 1969

Then, Professor Scott stated:
The old law, sedition, counted as an element in sedition the raising of ill-will between different classes of His Majesty's subjects, and dividing one class from another. This could be dividing a race from another. That used to be sufficient, in itself, to constitute sedition. The Supreme Court in the Boucher case said it was not sufficient in itself to constitute the crime of sedition unless it was accompanied with words or provocations or incitements which were likely to lead to a breach of the peace.
So, basically when the Supreme Court interpreted the law on sedition, it actually covered most of what is contained in this bill. Professor Scott went on to state:
In other words, under the Boucher decision we were told in Canada that we could publish or utter statements that might have an incidental effect of making people angry and causing a certain amount of ill-will, but it was not illegal until it reached that point where the peace was threatened.
This is like civil law where there has to be a trespass before you can start an action. You just cannot say there will be a trespass, there actually has to be an overt act. The same rule applies here; the peace must be threatened or there must be a reasonable belief that the peace is threatened.
If this bill passes the state of the law will be back to what it was before the Boucher case. I will never forget how delighted all my friends were when the Supreme Court came out with what we thought was a clarification of the law regarding freedom of speech, yet still provided us in Canada with adequate protection against the real danger. In other words, Professor Scott is saying, that a retrograde step was actually taken in respect of those people who dared to stand up to management in 1919. He suggests it would be a backward step if we were to return to the Padlock Law. There must be some over act, as a result of which the peace is threatened.
Let me come back to the peaceful protests that took place in Canada. This is a form of action taken to express an opinion. One need not agree with the people in universities or the people in the streets who protest, but providing the protest is peaceful and the aim of those who protest is not to damage property or to run slipshod over the civil rights of other people, then such protests fall within the right to freedom of speech. This is a right of the people to express themselves, as the people in the United States recently expressed their opinion against the war in Viet Nam. The recent protest march in Washington was one of the largest, but it was quiet and peaceful.
Criminal Code
The people in Canada and other democracies must have the right to this kind of protest and must have the right to freedom of speech. If you take away this right you are setting the law back several years, in fact to the last century. As the Globe and Mail suggested, we can go along with the first part of the bill, but the second part might erode or take away freedom of speech not only in respect of our newspapers, radio and television, but in respect of those who assemble in our streets to protest.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, this party or most of its members at least, will support this bill. We propose to suggest modifications which we hope will be given full consideration by the committee and will be considered by the minister even before we reach the committee stage. I will outline later on the modifications I propose.
In my view, this bill is directed toward a real, a very great and palpable evil, the evil of deliberate and wilful dissemination of racial hatred. In my view it is the duty of parliament, now that it has the opportunity, to declare that the purposeful incitement of hatred of racial groups is contrary to the moral sense of the Canadian community and ought to be prescribed by law. I am fully aware, as other speakers have said, that there are many staunch defenders of civil liberties who are uneasy about this legislation. My view, on balance, is that this legislation merely prescribes the reasonable limit, by any fair and sensible interpretation, of the ordinary freedom of speech and freedom of expression. There is a real problem. The problem that faces the legislature in dealing with hate propaganda is how to balance freedom of expression on the one hand against abuse by incitement of hatred and violence on the other. There are admittedly two contrary views. The first stresses the danger to freedom of critical expression which we all admit and proclaim is fundamental to our whole system.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
It is said that this danger is inherent in any attempt to prohibit or penalize controversial or even offensive modes of speech or writing. According to this school of thought, the disseminators of hate propaganda are only of trifling influence. It is said that unbalanced individuals are more likely to be encouraged by martyrdom, suppression and the attendant publicity, than they are to be deterred. They simply do not deserve to be or are not worthy

November 17, 1969
Criminal Code
to be noticed by the law. It is argued that the dangers of hate propaganda are minimal in Canada. It is said the attitudes of mind revealed by such publications and those likely to be affected by them should be dealt with by education and not by legislation. Legislation, it is argued, cannot be adequately and precisely framed in such a way as not to infringe on legitimate freedom of expression.
I want to put forward the other side of the argument which stresses the grave consequences revealed by history of racial hatred in a world compelled by technology to become a "neighbourhood". This side of the argument emphasizes the historic and necessary recognition of limitations to such concepts as freedom of speech which no more than any other concept or freedom can be interpreted as an absolute. It is said there is a widespread but generally latent tendency to hostility toward other groups which can be, and is, exploited by systematic and sometimes skilful promotion of hatred. It is argued on this side-and I accept this argument-that there is an important educative effect in positive legal pronouncements and sanctions and it is an error to keep legislation and education as mutually exclusive alternatives. Both are necessary to deal with this evil.
It is my view that there is need for remedial legislation and that this legislation does not in fact impinge upon any reasonable interpretation of freedom of speech. I do accept the broadest definition of freedom of speech. Indeed, I should like to quote to this House the words of Mr. Justice Rand in the Boucher case already referred to by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams). In that case, Mr. Justice Rand said:
Freedom in thought and speech and disagreement in ideas and beliefs, on every conceivable subject, are of the essence of our life. The clash of critical discussion on political, social and religious subjects has too deeply become the stuff of daily experience to suggest that mere ill-will as a product can strike down the latter with illegality.
If it were not disrespectful I would say to Mr. Justice Rand, "Hear, hear". I subscribe to that. What is involved in this legislation is the deliberate fomenting of hatred on the basis of races, groups and religions. That I suggest is quite a different thing from merely ill will. Some people are very exercised about infringement on freedom of speech. Surely, they must recognize that from time immemorial there have been necessary limitations upon freedom of speech. Our laws of libel and slander are the clearest exposition of that. They apply to private individuals. It is
[Mr. Brewln.j
recognized that I have no right to destroy my neighbour's reputation by repeating falsehoods about him. By what reasoning then can it be said that the destruction of the reputation and good name of a group of people should not also be condemned. This is just as dangerous in its implication and just as harmful and painful to the victims or recipients as individual defamation. But this for some reason or other is said to be sacrosanct and should be preserved in the name of freedom of speech.
I suggest that our ready and proper acceptance of limitations in respect of the laws of libel apply to group libel as much as private libel. It is said that some of us, including myself, in this party have suggested that the recently passed by-law in Montreal should be submitted to the courts and that we are opposed to its as an infringement of civil liberties. The question then is asked, is it consistent with that view to come forward in this House now and support this bill? I say there is all the difference in the world between these things. In our view, the Montreal by-law is clearly criminal law which is exclusively within the powers of parliament. It is our view that the Montreal by-law clearly infringes upon the legitimate and traditional exercise of the right of demonstration and free speech which has been said by the courts to be the breath of life of parliamentary institutions. But the legislation we are discussing can hardly be said to be other than criminal law and, therefore, its constitutionality cannot be questioned.
There is no parliamentary right to defame and incite hatred against whole groups of people. The Montreal legislation is clearly unnecessary because there is already adequate legislation. I agree with the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) that the same cannot be said in this particular field. The question may be asked, why should we bother with legislation unless there is a real threat. I should like to read one paragraph or two from the report on hate propaganda prepared, as the minister told us, by Professor Cohen with some distinguished colleagues including the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. Mac-Guigan). I should like to read from page 12 of that report which tells about what is happening in Canada, not somewhere else:
The current hate campaign dates from early 1963, when it began in the Toronto area. Since then it has extended to several other centres in Ontario, and to at least seven other provinces: British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Quebec; but the main
November 17, 1969

activities have been essentially in Ontario and to a lesser extent in Quebec and in British Columbia. From 1963 on there was and continues to be a steady dissemination of hate propaganda, mainly antiJewish, anti-Negro and neo-Nazi in nature. The propaganda has been plastered and displayed in conspicuous places, distributed at public gatherings, placed in apartment mailboxes, sent through the regular mails, and scattered from the upper floors of downtown buildings to the streets below.
The printed, mimeographed and other written materials seem to be obtained in large measure, although not exclusively, from American sources. In many instances it is mailed directly from Arlington, Virginia, the headquarters of the American Nazi Party and the World Union of National Socialists, and from Birmingham, Alabama-[DOT]
And so on. So, there cannot be any doubt that this country has witnessed a sustained campaign to disseminate hate literature. I shall not go into the details of this, but I believe that anyone who intends to speak on this subject should take the trouble to read some of the literature appended to this report. If they do so, I think they will find that it is clearly of a poisonous nature. It is not in any sense of a political nature but contains the poison of racial hatred.
There is another aspect of this matter not yet mentioned; that is the international aspect. In passing this bill, Parliament will be giving effect to the United Nations declaration on the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination passed unanimously at the UN General Assembly on November 23, 1963. Article 9 of the declaration reads as follows:
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
1.	All propaganda and organizations based on ideas or theories of the superiority of one race or group of persons of one colour or ethnic origin with a view to justifying or promoting racial discrimination in any form shall be severely condemned.
2.	All incitement to or acts of violence, whether by individuals or organizations, against any race or group of persons of another colour or ethnic origin shall be considered an offence against society and punishable under law.
Therefore, in 1963, on the unanimous recommendation of the nations of the United Nations, Canada undertook to promote legislation of the sort that we are dealing with here. I suggest that we are merely fulfilling our international obligations by passing this legislation.
I mentioned earlier that there were some modifications in this legislation that I wanted to see adopted. I want to speak about those at the present time. The first and most important modification that I suggest to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) and to the House is that instead of relying exclusively on
Criminal Code
purely penal consequences, such as imprisonment and fines, it would be perfectly proper and possible to introduce into this legislation what I call an injunctive process or a cease and desist order. This would be a far more flexible and far less penal method of dealing with this subject. If the minister has not considered such a possibility very fully so far, he might say that this is a civil remedy which is not open to us when we are dealing with the criminal law. I think the minister probably will recall-if he does not, no doubt some of his assistants will help him recall it-the Goodyear case which was dealt with under the Criminal Code and the Combines Investigation Act. In that case, the Supreme Court of Canada clearly and explicitly held that the injunctive process is a proper means of enforcing criminal law.


John Napier Turner: Would the hon. member permit a question? Has he considered the difficulty that would arise, even if one were to concede that the injunctive proceeding falls clearly under criminal law, because in order to obtain an injunction one has virtually to prove the case in the same way as one would have to establish the case for a prosecution?


Francis Andrew Brewin: I appreciate the fact that the legislation must be based on criminal law to bring it within federal jurisdiction, but I am suggesting what should be an appropriate penalty. I suggest to the minister that to say to some offender who may be relatively innocent, an ignorant and misguided fellow, "look, you have made a mistake, don't do it again''' is better than putting him in jail or fining him a large sum of money. However, if he continued his actions, he would be guilty of contempt of court and a much more severe punishment would be justified. This injunctive procedure is more flexible.
Another reason for advocating the injunctive procedure is that once you have an injunction, it would apply not only to the accused but to his servants, agents and others working with him. Once you have an injunction against this criminal activity, you have the ability to enforce it and if some agent or servant continued the activity you would not require a further prosecution. I suggest to the minister quite seriously that this suggestion of mine deserves careful consideration. I offer it to him because I want to make his legislation work. I am not making the suggestion in a critical way, but I think it will reduce some of the sting of the legislation. As I said, I appreciate the necessity of dealing with hate

November 17, 1969
Criminal Code
propaganda under the heading of criminal law, but once you have it under that heading the type of remedy you choose makes a difference. It would be possible for the courts dealing with such cases under this injunctive procedure to do so in a more gentle fashion and not feel obliged to express their disapproval of the crime in question by a jail sentence or some heavy fine. It works the other way around also. A small fine may be considered a sort of licence fee, whereas a restraining order would have the whole majesty of the law behind it and would have to be obeyed. I hope the minister will consider this suggestion.
My other suggestion to the minister is to look again at the definitions. The British race relations act, which was passed fairly recently, requires a specific intent to stir up hatred against any section of the public distinguished by colour, race or ethnic or national origins. The word "wilful" is included in section 3. It is my view that the word "wilful" and the minister knows this very well-can be interpreted in many different ways by the Courts and sometimes means one thing and sometimes another. If you have to find a specific intent, as the British act specifies, to stir up hatred against some section of the public or identifiable group then, I suggest, you have an additional safeguard to those already in the act, and perhaps a better one. However, I appreciate that this discussion is one that can take place appropriately in the committee. I want to say to the minister that I prefer the British definition.
While I am referring to the British legislation, may I mention that some people have asked me whether we should not just rely on the common law and whether this type of legislation is not really unnecessary. One point that I would like to make in that connection is that this is a viewpoint strongly held within Great Britain. They have a long tradition of dealing with matters by common law and yet they found it necessary to bring in their race relations act, which is a parallel to this bill, and almost every thoroughly democracy, would adopt legislation of this similar provisions. I ask those who are so fearful of its effect on civil liberties to inquire whether countries like the United Kingdom and the Scandinavian countries, which have had a long tradition of civil liberty and democracy, would adopt legislation of this sort if it were truly a threat to civil liberty.
There is another suggestion which I should like to make to the minister which he might

consider at a later date. I think the working out of a law such as this one should be under constant review, and I hope that from time to time perhaps the parliamentary Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs would regularly review how this legislation is applied and how often the Attorneys General have been asked and have refused to act. I do not think this suggestion should necessarily be incorporated in the law but perhaps included in a statement of intent which the minister might give so as to relieve the fears of those who feel that perhaps this may be an invasion of our liberties. Indeed, if it turns out that this law is used as a cover to suppress legitimate freedom of speech or anything of that sort, I would be one of the first to say that it should be repealed right away; some such undertaking by the Minister might relieve the fears of those who are dubious about it.
Therefore, on the ground that there is here a clear and palpable evil which has reared its head in the country, on the ground that we are not in any substantial manner interfering with the freedom of speech, on the ground that the moral sense of Canadians requires this type of legislation, and on the ground of the educative effects of Parliament saying to our younger people, this racial hatred is abhorrent to Canadians, 1 urge this House to accept the bill.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)


Mr. Rene  Malle@Champlain: Mr. Speaker, once more we can see the government rushing an imperfect bill through, which seems to indicate an intention to act quickly. That is why we must say that we support this bill in principle-*


Mr. Walker:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I regret I have to ask that someone turn on the translation system. The hon. member's speech is not being translated at the moment.


Mr. Rene  Malle@Champlain: Naturally, we want to condemn hate literature but, in practice, an analysis of the clauses of the bill makes us realize that what it proposes to do is very good, very noble and very commendable since, for instance, the purpose of section 267a is more or less to prohibit wars.
Even if Nigeria passed legislation against genocide, the government of that country would itself be accused of this crime!
November 17, 1969

How can the present government accuse itself of genocide against Biafra? I wonder. For this reason, I feel the first part of the bill aims at forbidding wars since genocide is committed particularly, during wars and generally, the belligerents in such conflicts try to exterminate one another.
This very pious measure, at least in that regard, seeks to prevent genocides. Of course, we are in favour of it in principle. However, what would it achieve?
I would like to point out some special aspects of the bill. For example, section 267a (2) reads as follows and I quote:
(2) In this section "genocide" includes any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy in whole or in part any identifiable group, namely:
(a)	killing members of the group, or
And this is the clause which I want to point out:
(b)	deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction.
The clause would have been more practical if reference had been made to moral destruction, because when the group is physically destroyed, nothing can be done to remedy the condition, since it no longer exists.
Moral destruction could occur and, then, we would have to charge ourselves with having caused, in a large measure, the genocide of the Indians and the Eskimos, because, from a moral standpoint, these peoples have practically been destroyed by our action during a number of years. It is therefore easy to see where this can lead us.
It is distressing and unfortunate to realize that such destructions, both physical and moral, can take place even in 1969. Evidence of this can be found in the wars now being waged in Viet Nam and Biafra. In principle, we are opposed to genocide.
It seems to me, judging by such comments, that the government is expecting some catastrophes to strike Canada in the near future. Which part of the country or what group of citizens are threatened with physical destruction, I do not know, but some catastrophes appear to be expected, and this bill practically marks the beginning of the end of the world.
In principle we agree to be against genocide but, as I tried to show, we consider that it is equivalent to day-dreaming, that it is a very nice bill, but a bill which does not really get us anywhere; rather it promotes distrust among Canadians, since it does not give us
Criminal Code
the opportunity to go to Biafra to solve the conflict. What have we to do with all this?
If I consider only the bill, I tend to think that its purpose is to prevent physical annihilation of the Indians and the Eskimos who are a part of the Canadian people. At first glance I do not see anything else in it. But, as I think it over, I say to myself: why should we try to stir up the fire, to add fuel to the fire at a time when the situation is such that the Quebec Minister of Justice is taking the bit between his teeth about everything and deciding when remarks are hateful?
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, the way things have been going for some time, anyone who dislikes the Quebec Minister of Justice will wind up behind bars. It is not under such circumstances that things should be stirred up even more and that such a bill should be introduced. Whom does it protect? What does it provide? In other words, what problem does it solve? Those are the questions I am asking myself.
I object to sections 267b and 267c of this bill for several reasons. I object to them because if they were strictly enforced, several among us would already have been indicted.
We have all been through election campaigns and we all know that in Quebec, particularly, they are sometimes waged in a rather unconventional way. Much hateful talking is done, depending on how this expression is interpreted. In a public meeting, it may happen that an individual's words seem insulting to someone attending that meeting to the point of causing violence.
Our Prime Minister himself (Mr. Trudeau) went through this. Is it possible for us to control the emotions, the feelings, the susceptibilities of the people attending a meeting? It is unthinkable!
Man as a free agent must assume responsibility for his actions and it is childish to let oneself be manipulated by some character trying to stir up violence.
How are we to interpret this piece of legislation? How are we to determine when a statement is of a heinous nature? Several persons will certainly have to suffer greatly from that situation, taking into account the succeeding political leaders. A statement will be considered heinous by some, and not so by others. Where will that lead us? This will create even more violence, if there is any. We must indeed agree on the meaning of that word.

November 17, 1969
Criminal Code
There are at present great fears arising from certain things which are happening, particularly in Quebec. Such things have been happening at all times. I repeat at all times.
In my youth, I often heard political debates, during the famous contradictory meetings. They often led to lively fights. It has ever been so.
Nowadays, there are demonstrations, unplanned, but which nevertheless take place. We should not panic to the extent of opposing one of the most sacred and inviolable of rights, the right of speech, the right of the individual to express his opinion.
How many authors, even among the greatest, have promoted hate within the meaning of the law? It all depends on who hear them. When it comes to hate, it is important to make a distinction between the object and the subject of hate.
There is another matter which I would like to point out, and it is found at page 2. I quote:
(3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)
(a) for expressing in good faith and in decent language, or attempting to establish by argument used in good faith and conveyed in decent language, an opinion upon a religious subject;
There, the cat is out of the bag. An exception is made for a religious subject because it is expected that it is not this subject that may be the object of the enforcement of the law in Canada.
Yet if there is a subject which all through the ages has sown the seeds of hatred and .engendered religious conflicts and wars, that is the one! However, the law does nothing about it.
It is not necessary to go back very far in time, since in 1969 people still come to blows for religious differences.
Here, we eliminate this, even though paragraph 3 of section 267b appears to be somewhat less rigorous than preceding ones and I say "somewhat", because it seems to mitigate what comes before, and I quote:
(a) for expressing in good faith and in decent language-[DOT]
(i)	that the statements communicated were true, ,or
(ii)	that they were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and that on reasonable grounds he believes them to be true.
How does one decide that public interest is involved? If a crowd of 4,000 or 5,000 gives a standing ovation to a speaker and that, afterwards, his words are called hate

propaganda by the Attorney General, what meaning should be given to "public interest"? Will a referendum be held each time to determine whether the public interest was involved? In my opinion, this question is extremely difficult if not impossible to solve.
This bill can lead to unjustifiable abuses. I am amazed that the Prime Minister, who not so long ago defended so strongly the cause of freedom, was seen with Michel Chartrand, for instance, inciting the Asbestos workers to resist the Quebec provincial police in the Duplessis era. I am surprised to see the Prime Minister forget his principles about human freedom, individual freedom, that he always fiercely defended.
For all these reasons, we cannot accept this bill as it stands now.
I repeat once more that we are obviously against hate propaganda and that, jointly with the federal government, we would like to eliminate, if possible, this kind of propaganda. But how are we to know What such propaganda is? Several cases, if not all, are already covered by the law. Indeed, if somebody feels he is being attacked by hate remarks he may always defend himself and this is what he does ordinarily.
I fail to see then the reason for this bill. It is too dangerous to accept it, especially in the present circumstances since it seems to represent a means found by the federal government to prevent I do not know what catastrophe in this country. I feel that it has a very poor opinion of Canadians whom I believe to be quite responsible. A few remarks judged hateful will not turn the people away from the real objectives to which must tend a society which considers itself "just" as advocated during the last session.
Hate propaganda really exists and I know it. Right now, the law even provides for the imposition of penalties in that respect because if the nature of hate propaganda were to be determined here, the so-called obscene propaganda would be considered to be the worst.
Obscene propaganda exists in this country. It runs free and, at the present time, abominable things can be read in the small papers published by students in high schools and in Quebec CEGEPs. Their material really amounts to hate propaganda; yet, nobody will curb it. Why? Because that propaganda precisely strikes at this country's fundamental principles, that is the Christian principles.
It is left to run free and, in consequence, we reach a point where we have to put up
November 17, 1969

Criminal Code
with hate propaganda of all kinds. Fortunately, the existing legislation is designed to preclude that, but nobody takes action.
The Postal service is sometimes used to dissiminate such propaganda; yet, some postal service regulations were enacted to check such occurrences. Nobody cares about that. On the other hand, if an individual dares promote a new political doctrine or question the constitution of this country, that is considered dangerous.
Mr. Speaker, if we ever witness the catastrophes that this bill seems to anticipate, they will be attributable to the excessive liberty we have allowed newspapers and writers, while the law provides penalties against such writings and the arrest of their authors.
I do not believe this bill will improve the situation any, but, it may offend a good number of people. As a matter of fact, this country will become more and more a police state and a dictatorship, something we all denounce and do not want to happen in Canada.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)


Mr. Steven Otto (York East):: Mr. Speaker, I understand that it is not the purpose of this bill to abolish hatred. I do not believe man will ever get rid of hatred and vengeance. I agree with the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) that racial hatred has reared its ugly head in this country and should be stopped, but I do not believe the purpose of this bill is to get rid of that very human instinct called hatred. Of all creatures, man alone has the instinct of hatred and vengeance. Curiously enough it is man alone who thinks he is more than animal. Man is the only creature who has the contention he is not animal, but something more than animal.
If Messrs. Martin and Fox, the United States anthropologists, Messrs. Martin and Forest, and Mr. Tiger from Montreal are correct, we must accept that racial differentiation, or at least the identification of groups, forms part of our civilization. It is not the purpose of the bill to create racial, ethnic or religious groups because these groups will merge and disappear. Even coloured races one day will merge into one.
Surely, the purpose of the bill is to protect the individual in a group so that the smearing, hatred and all that overshadows the whole group will not hurt the individual. We recognize this situation is bad for Canada. It is bad for national unity. It is an impossible 21362-57
and intolerable way of life. This bill has a purpose, but that purpose is not going to change, in general terms, the nature of man.
By law, we will restrict the use of communications and the printed word when they have no other purpose than to incite people to behave in an evil manner. Some hon. members have suggested this is not possible. Of course there will be many problems. The questions have been asked: What do we do with a child who makes statements? What do we do with the printed word? How do we define these terms? We will have many problems in deciding the application of this law, nevertheless throughout the history of civilization legislation has been very effective in controlling those instincts of man which do not contribute to civilized living.
With regard to vengeance, I am sure hon. members are knowledgeable enough in history to know that prior to the Samarian culture vengeance was unlimited. If you were a member of a neighbouring tribe and someone stole your property, you were at liberty to eliminate his whole family, tribe and even nation. This condition did not change until the Samarians enacted laws based on the principle of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, which idea still prevails.
We must not consider legislation to be ineffective. It is effective. It proved effective in Ontario in the field of rental loans. At that time there were many complaints. The suggestion was made that legislation would never work because after all it was an interference with our individual liberty to rent properties as we saw fit. However, this legislation has worked. The majesty of law is very powerful if it is properly applied.
There is one issue I wish to bring to the attention of the minister. Although we have accepted the principle put forward that racial hatred and the dissemination of communications dealing with racial hatred shall not be used to the prejudice of any group, race or colour, nevertheless for some unknown reason we still accept the common law principle of truth as a defence. I am a lawyer. I have been trained in the common law. This great sanctity for the truth seems to be an excuse for everything. The minister should ask himself whether truth is an excuse for infringement of privacy.
Section 267b (3) states:
No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2) .. .
(b) if he establishes
(i) that the statements communicated were true,-

November 17, 1969
Criminal Code
How many ways are there, Mr. Speaker, in which the truth can be used for the very purpose this bill is seeking to eliminate? Truths and half-truths have always been used by demagogues. Is it not true when certain people in the United Kingdom state their jobs have been taken over by coloured men from the West Indies? Is this not true? Of course, it is. Is the statement not true that in many large Canadian cities a certain professional group, or at least the majority of it, are of a certain religious belief?
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
What is the purpose of that? It is true, and under this bill the making of such a statement becomes an offence. It is the use of true statements, or the misuse of true statements which will make this law to some extent ineffective. There are more problems in connection with laws which contain loopholes than arise when there are no laws at all. Can the minister explain how anyone could be found to be prejudiced when he speaks the truth when one of the subsections provides a good defence if it can be shown his statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit?
If anyone has a defence which establishes public benefit, surely he does not need the extra defence of truth. After all, the question "What is truth?" is one which will not be settled for generations to come. This will be the cyst which holds all the illness in the body of this legislation and will make this law ineffective since so much will depend upon the judge or upon the political temper of the times.
The common law concept is that no matter what you say, or about whom you say it, if you speak the truth you are exonerated. Nobody has questioned the reason for uttering these so-called truths. I would ask the minister and the committee to examine the sanctified word "truth" as it relates to a defence under this bill or under any bill.


Mr. Melvin McQuaid (Cardigan):: Mr. Speaker, while I do not agree with this bill in its entirety, I do wish to make it abundantly clear at the outset that I see no reason at all why hate propaganda should be ignored. Discrimination of any kind on grounds of race, colour, religion or ethnic origin certainly cannot be tolerated. Any thinking person would surely agree with this view.
I notice that the bill omits the phrase "national origin" though it was included in the

report of the special committee as one of the areas in which discrimination should not be exercised. There is probably a reason for the omission of those words and perhaps the minister will take the opportunity to explain it when he comes to reply. I think it is agreed by all that in no circumstances must we allow the malicious abuse of any group, or person. The promotion of hatred constitutes without question a grave danger to our democratic system. Although the number of persons engaged in doing so may be relatively small, we cannot afford to ignore their activities.
I was interested and pleased to note on reading the report of the Cohen Committee that the promotion of hatred does not exist at all as a problem in my own province of Prince Edward Island. This is something of which I believe we can be justly proud; according to the committee there are only two provinces in which no such problem is encountered-the Province of Newfoundland and the Province of Prince Edward Island. I am very happy it is not a problem in my own province. Nevertheless, though it may not directly affect us, I wish to assure the House that I am vitally interested in the subject.
We all agree, I think, that we must be able to exercise maximum freedom of expression. But freedom of expression does not include the right to vilify or the right to defame. We agree with the Cohen Committee that freedom of expression is not an absolute right. The Canadian Bill of Rights guarantees freedom of expression to our people but at the same time we have laws which prohibit seditions, defamatory, libelous or obscene literature. Adequate provision is made in the Criminal Code to cover these areas.
Bearing in mind the principle that preference must always be exercised on the side of freedom of speech, I seriously suggest that when this bill gets to the committee we shall need to examine most carefully the question just how much speech is free speech. This is, in my view, the crucial question. As I mentioned before, those who advocate or promote genocide must, in my opinion, definitely fall outside the bounds of free speech; they cannot be protected by the argument that freedom of expression is allowed.
Turning to the bill itself, I note that clause 267a prohibits the advocacy and promotion of genocide. Genocide was, of course, prohibited under a convention of the United Nations ratified by Canada in 1952. This convention prohibited not only genocide but conspiracy
November 17, 1969

to commit genocide, attempts to commit genocide, and incitement to commit genocide. These things are already adequately covered. What the present bill attempts to do is to prevent the advocacy or the promotion of genocide. My chief concern is whether or not the intent of the whole measure is not already covered by the provisions of the Criminal Code as they stand.
I have examined the bill carefully, together with the corresponding sections of the Criminal Code, and I am convinced that the committee, when it comes to study this measure, will need to hear the testimony of experts as to whether or not all the things which this legislation purports to prevent are not already, with one exception, punishable under the Criminal Code.
It is interesting to note that in 1952, when Canada ratified the United Nations convention on the prevention of genocide, the then minister of justice, the Hon. Mr. Lesage, made the following statement before the Committee on External Affairs which was considering the subject in question. I quote from the report of the committee:
The opinion of the deputy minister of justice, which is accepted by the Canadian Government, is that the provisions of the Criminal Code as they are now, cover all the possibilities and are such that any of the acts mentioned in articles II and III are punishable under our law.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
I suggest that it was obviously the opinion of the Deputy Minister of Justice in 1952, concurred in by the Minister of Justice himself, that all of the things that articles II and III of the convention attempted to do were adequately covered by the Criminal Code. I suggest to this minister-and I will make this suggestion to the committee-that quite probably the very provisions the bill attempts to make are already adequately dealt with by the Criminal Code.
Let me examine the bill to see whether I can make this point. The proposed section 267a provides as follows:
(1) Everyone who advocates or promotes genocide is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment-
The subsection goes on to provide a penalty of five years.
I suggest that section 407 of the Criminal Code makes the same provision. In fact, it goes further and provides for an even more severe penalty. I should like to place on the record the wording of section 407:
Except where otherwise expressly provided by law, the following provisions apply in respect of 21362-57|
Criminal Code
persons who counsel, procure or incite other persons to commit offences namely,
(a) every one who counsels, procures or incites another person to commit an indictable offence is, if the offence is not committed, guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to the same punishment to which a person who attempts to commit that offence is liable;-
Does that provision not cover the situation here? Section 267a provides that every one who advocates or promotes genocide is guilty of an offence and is liable to imprisonment for five years. The other section is differently worded; instead of "advocates or promotes" the wording is "counsels, procures or incites". Why cannot a man who promotes genocide be charged under section 407 of the Criminal Code?
I think the committee should look into this question, because if a man can be charged and convicted under section 407, the penalty is more severe than that provided by the proposed section 267a.


David James Walker: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Melvin James McQuaid: Certainly.


David James Walker: Is there any reference to the advocacy of group genocide in that section?


Melvin James McQuaid: The hon. member is anticipating me; I intend to deal with that point. I agree the section does not deal with group defamation, and so on. However, I am dealing with the case of the individual. My argument is that the proposed section 267a provides imprisonment for every one who advocates or promotes genocide. If the committee receives expert testimony that convinces the members of the committee that the words "advocates or promotes" carry a different meaning from the words "counsels, procures or incites", then it may be that section 407 would not conflict. But there seems to be very little difference between the wording. As I say, a man charged under section 407 with incitement to commit genocide can be convicted under that section regardless of the provisions of section 267a.
Let me now deal with the proposed section 267b, which provides:
(1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred or contempt against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace, is guilty of
(a)	an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for two years; or
(b)	an offence punishable on summary conviction.

November 17, 1969
Criminal Code
Under that provision the choice apparently rests with the prosecution whether someone is charged with an indictable offence or with an offence punishable on summary conviction. In the latter case, the accused is not entitled to trial by jury, to be tried by his peers. I think a person charged with an offence as serious as this should be guaranteed the right to be tried and judged by a jury, rather than by a judge or magistrate alone.
I suggest that this provision in the bill is also included in the Criminal Code. Bearing in mind that the proposed section 267b provides that every one who, by communicating statements, incites hatred or contempt is guilty of an offence, section 160(a)(i) provides: Every one who
(a) not being in a dwelling house causes a disturbance in or near a public place,
(i) by fighting, screaming, shouting, swearing, singing or using insulting or obscene language ... is guilty of an offence-
In essence, is this not the same provision as the proposed section 267b, which refers to persons communicating statements-in other words, speaking-in a public place that incite hatred or contempt? Section 160 uses the words "insulting or obscene language". I suggest that insulting or obscene language would in all probability lead to the inciting of hatred or contempt.
This is another point on which the committee must hear the opinion of experts. It is my firm conviction that anybody charged under the proposed section 267B could just as effectively be charged under section 160(a)(i) of the Criminal Code.
I come now to the proposed section 267b (2), which provides:
Everyone who, by communicating statements, wilfully promotes hatred or contempt against any identifiable group is guilty of
(a)	an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for two years; or
(b)	an offence punishable on summary conviction.
As has been pointed out, this is a new provision. That is what is described by the Cohen committee as group defamation. We have not anything in our present law which covers group defamation. That section, as it is presently drafted, is to me a very dangerous section, and herein lies the danger. It provides:
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
Everyone who, by communicating statements, wilfully promotes hatred or contempt against any identifiable group is guilty of (a) an indictable offence-

Let me point out that the communicating statements do not have to be made in a public place. In other words, if I made such statements in my own home, I would be liable to a charge under this section. Surely, the minister would agree that the section is wide enough to include what I might say in my own home in the presence of my own family. Surely, that is dangerous. It has been said here many times that the law has no place in the bedrooms of the nation. Certainly, it has no place in the living rooms of the nation.
I do not think we should restrict expression of opinion so drastically that we cannot express our opinions within the confines of our own home. To be liable, as I read it and I am subject to correction by the minister, what I say does not have to be said and what I do does not have to be done, in a public place.
Even more serious is the penalty section. What may happen to me if I do say something of this nature within the confines of my own home? Subsection (4) of this proposed section reads:
Where a person is convicted of an offence under Section 267a of subsection (1) or (2) -
It is subsection (2) of this section which makes it an offence to say these things in your own home. Let me repeat what it provides:
Where a person is convicted of an offence under Section 267a or subsection (1) or (2) of this section, anything by means of or in relation to which the offence was committed, may, in addition to any other punishment imposed, be ordered by the presiding magistrate or judge to be forfeited to Her Majesty-
Does that mean if this offence is committed in my home that my home is liable to seizure and forfeiture to Her Majesty? It says "anything by means of or in relation to which the offence was committed". If the offence was committed in my home, then it is in relation to my home that the offence was committed and there is a possibility that my home could be seized. The minister smiled, but I am sure this is not a smiling matter. There is some reason for looking carefully into this provision.
Surely, the minister and members of the committee will agree that this section as it is worded could prevent me from free discussion in my home or free expression of my opinion to the members of my family. I suggest further, and again I am subject to correction if I am wrong, that subsection (4)
November 17, 19G9

imposes a very heavy penalty when it provides that "anything by means of or in relation to which the offence was committed" may be seized and forfeited to Her Majesty. The section also indicates, and this is a very clear departure from the present law, that this type of defamation includes spoken words and gestures. What is meant by the word "gestures"? How do I offend against this law by gestures?
Another provisions of the bill with which I strongly disagree, and this has been mentioned this afternoon, is that part which leaves it to the discretion of the Attorneys General of the provinces whether or not an offence should be prosecuted. This is wrong and the discretion should not be left with the Attorneys General. Certainly if I were an Attorney General I would not want to have to shoulder that burden. I am confident that if the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) polled the Attorneys General of the Provinces he would find they prefer not to have that burden placed upon them, and they would make that decision for obvious reasons. The Attorneys General are subject to all the vagaries of politics and, if they can avoid it, do not like to cause ill will or discontent among those they perhaps later on will have to turn to in search of support at the polls.
The Cohen committee has indicated that this Provision is included to avoid frivolous and vexatious prosecutions. I seriously suggest there is another very effective way of preventing frivolous and vexatious prosecutions. The magistrate or justice of the peace before whom one goes to swear an information and complaint, if he fulfils his duties and does what he is required to do under the Criminal Code before signing such a document, would make inquiries as to the circumstances surrounding the alleged offence. If he felt that the charge was vexatious or frivolous he would choose not to issue that information and complaint by simply saying: No, I am sorry, but in this case the circumstances as they appear to me do not warrant the issuing of such a charge.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 44, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight are as follows: the
Customs Act
hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Skoberg)- grain, boxcar distribution, opportunity for opposition members to meet railway officials; the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Mac-quarrie)-post office, request for reduction of rates on non-profit publications; the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Serre)-the Canadian economy, possible nickel and copper price increases, action by the government.
It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely Notices of Motion and Public Bills.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS


Mr. Jerry Pringle (Fraser Valley East) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the govern-, ment should consider the advisability of making regulations, pursuant to paragraph (r) of section 273 of the Customs Act, so as to facilitate airplane tourist traffic at Canadian airports of entry by providing for the deputizing of qualified personnel now employed as management or administrative officers to handle customs clearance to such tourist traffic.
He said: Mr. Speaker, during my submission to the House of Commons today I hopefully propose to provide sufficient information regarding Canada's general aviation industry to lay a base for the support of my motion to recruit airport managers and their assistants to act as customs officers to handle customs clearance for flying tourists at airports of entry.
I know from personal experience that the vast majority of Canadians are unaware of the volume of light plane traffic using Canada's air space today. I refer to light planes as single engine and multi-engined, propeller, turbo-prop or jets capable of carrying from 2 to 15 passengers per aircraft. Their access to air space while travelling east and west is relatively unhampered. However, southbound traffic across the border and return has been and still is seriously handicapped by lack of customs and immigration service at non-airline and non-international airports of entry.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
I hasten to state categorically at the outset that under no circumstances should my statements be construed as a criticism of our Canadian customs and immigration officials. I

November 17, 1969
Customs Act
am confident that I can say without fear of contradiction that allowing for a few minor exceptions we receive courteous and efficient service from customs and immigration officials. I congratulate both the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Cote) and the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Mac-Eachen) on their personnel officers charged with the responsibility of selecting staff who daily serve the Canadian public. Perhaps a short explanation regarding international aircraft tourist travel would serve to acquaint hon. members with some problems which could be resolved by the adoption of this motion.
Aircraft returning to Canada or United States aircraft coming to Canada are required to file flight plans at points of departure in the United States. The intended Canadian port of entry and estimated time of arrival are stipulated, plus request for customs clearance The flight plan is passed to the Department of Transport radio service office nearest to the port of entry. The Department of Transport notifies the local customs officer who endeavours to meet the aircraft on arrival. It is unnecessary for the pilot to clear with United States customs when departing from the United States. There is a similar situation the other way. This system worked well at international airports and reasonably well at airports of entry where customs offices are located nearby during the period when seven day per week clearance was available at all points of entry. This is no longer the case. The average time involved in clearing an aircraft is less that 15 minutes. However, travel to and from airports is time-consuming and Inconvenient. Nevertheless, aircraft tourist traffic has steadily increased during the past number of years when customs clearance was available on a more or less sunrise to sunset basis. The nominal mileage fee paid by the pilot has been acceptable to flying tourists.
How many of us realize that more than
12.000	United States airplanes visited Expo '67? During the Abbotsford Air show, held annually in August, 1,400 aircraft from the United States visited Canada for the three day event in 1969 alone. In Canada today there are 10,000 registered aircraft. Light aircraft account for all but a few hundred. However, when we look at our tourist potential the figures are most impressive. There are
700.000	licensed pilots in the United States. Of the 130,000 registered airplanes in the United States, 98 per cent are owned by general aviation or non-airline people. The Federal Aviation Administration in the United States

estimates that 50 per cent of all air passengers in the United States are carried by nonairline airplanes. Therefore, flying tourist traffic offers great potential, but lack of customs clearance assurance at Canadian ports of entry, other than international airports of entry, discourages our United States friends from travelling to Canada in light aircraft.
It is true there was a time when only the idle rich could afford private airplanes. This concept is no longer valid. Canadians and Americans in all walks of life are registered owners and pilots. The flying farmers association utilizes various types of aircraft as operational vehicles to facilitate emergency trips to centres for repair parts, fence inspections, aids to round-up of cattle, crop spraying, and so on. Since most airports are located some distance from the urban centres, the general public is unaware of the ever increasing light plane traffic. In fact, light plane traffic has been increasing so rapidly during the past few years that governments, in their wisdom, have been endeavouring to entice light airplane traffic away from major international airports in the interest of easing congestion. Governments have also been increasing aid for development of smaller airports in both urban and rural areas.
It should also be pointed out that light planes can be equipped with navigational and radio aids equal in sophistication to those on the largest jet transports. While this is most helpful on cross-country flights, approaching and landing procedures at large international airports can become congested as a result of the wide difference in speed between light aircraft and jet transports. Light plane pilots appreciate the policy of the Department of Transport to build and improve more small airports. This allows a pilot to elect to avoid high density areas. The recent reduction of customs service to smaller airports of entry must therefore be considered to be in conflict with government policy.
I am sure we all commend the government on its recent policy of taking positive steps to reduce government spending. We can readily agree to the abandonment of costly projects as commanding lower priority to essential services. It is not my intention today to suggest that revisions of regulations in respect of customs and excise to downgrade essential custom service to the Canadian public should be reinstated. On the contrary, my motion, if approved, would provide an alternative which would not only serve to upgrade customs clearance service at airports of entry, but would do so without-and I emphasize this-
November 17, 1969

additional cost to the federal treasury. Mr. Speaker, the flying public's greatest concern centres around the fact that the alternate proposal of providing service from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. five days per week is unrealistic.
Flying tourist traffic reaches its peak between Friday afternoon and Sunday evening. During a discussion with the vice-president of American Owners and Pilots Association, I was advised that, in his opinion, American pilots will avoid trips to Canada as a result of the recent change of policy. Service on week ends is available at a few large airports but is available to most airports of tourist destination only on payment of heavy travelling fees. One airport in my constituency which has provided unlimited customs service for the past 20 years is now denied service after 5 p.m. and on holidays, Saturdays and Sundays.
If a pilot arrives a few minutes late or inadvertently files a flight plan requesting customs service after 5 p.m. he is forced to pay more than $22 for not more than 15 minutes attention. The amount represents travelling mileage cost from the closest automobile port of entry. No wonder the vicepresident of AOPA, representing over 500,000 pilots in the United States, is of the opinion that Canada will be on the taboo list for American flying tourists.
On September 9, a well known executive of Smith Falls, Ontario, attempted to land at his home airport after filing a flight plan from his departure point in the United States requesting customs clearance. Radio contact informed him that the local customs official was unavoidably detained and unable to clear him even though he was arriving during the prescribed period. This situation forced him to continue his flight to Ottawa for clearance and he lost an hour of valuable time, plus the additional cost of aircraft operation.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
Similar incidents are being reported daily across Canada. Aviation associations are presently appraising the damage to our flying tourist trade as well as complaints of unfair treatment resulting from the arbitrary downgrading of service by the Department of National Revenue. They are also pressing the industry to find an alternative. I submit that this motion could very well serve this purpose.
True pioneers spawned and developed aviation throughout the years. Obstruction to normal aviation has been in evidence since Orville Wright got off the ground at Kitty
Customs Act
Hawk. The aviation industry is conditioned to opposition and has been travelling upstream for years. It is now conceded that modern aircraft are the safest, fastest and most reliable means of transportation today when calculated on a passenger mile basis. Sophisticated navigational and pilot aids have reduced the accident rate well below any other method of travel in proportion to passenger miles. The air passenger explosion has been astronomical, and governments throughout the world are endeavouring to decentralize airports and control zones to accommodate the increasing number of daily arrivals and departures. Some uninformed officials advocate elimination of light planes in the airspace. This attempt will be as successful as a similar one would be to ban automobiles from highways in favour of buses and trucks, even though the high incidence of accidents on highways would indicate more justification for a ban.


Mr. Allmand:: Would the hon. member permit a question? Could he tell us how many smaller aircraft are licenced in Canada and the United States, and how many people are involved in the ownership and the licencing of these aircraft in both countries?


M. Ervin Pringle: I brought this out earlier in my speech. There are 10,000 registered airplanes in Canada and 130,000 registered airplanes in the United States, and 98 per cent of all the aircraft in the United States are owned by non-airline people, while 50 per cent of all the traffic in the United States is estimated by the federal aviation administration to be carried by general aviation or light airplanes.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


M. Ervin Pringle: I previously mentioned that aviation is the offspring of pioneers-pioneers who have never been satisfied to rest on their laurels. All fliers and those associated with aviation have an inherent desire to assist development whenever and wherever possible. It is, therefore, only natural that when a problem arises seriously threatening development, the industry seeks to find a logical and practical solution. The excellent co-operation of the Department of Transport notwithstanding, there are those of us who feel that the accelerated aviation development, other than that of airlines, took place more in spite of government intervention than because of it.
I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your indulgence in permitting me to lay the foundation in support of my motion. The industry now

November 17, 1969
Customs Act
stands ready to suggest to Parliament a solution which could alleviate problems relating to customs clearance at most airports of entry.
Practically all airports of entry are owned by cities or municipalities or a combination of both. Airport boards of directors employ managers and assistants to collect fees and rents, to supervize airport maintenance and safety regulations, and generally to act as policemen of administration. Their duties are usually performed between sunrise and sunset. The men and women so involved are responsible people, more than capable of handling the very limited requirements for customs clearance of non-commercial aircraft and I stress the word "non-commercial". I am referring to tourist aircraft. They are already gainfully employed at airports and are oriented to performing and enforcing disciplinary rules as set out by the Department of Transport and civic authorities. They would be ideal customs officer deputies who would faithfully perform their duties as prescribed by oath on a seven day per week basis. Travelling costs between customs offices and airports would be eliminated. These officers would be subject to periodic inspection and would be responsible to the closest customs office where regular reports could be submitted. Customs officers would be relieved of the inconvenient trips to airports during office hours, which would improve their office efficiency.
I reiterate that there would be no added cost to the federal treasury. The actual time required to clear tourist aircraft is usually less than 15 minutes.


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


M. Ervin Pringle: I will be glad to answer the question after I conclude my speech in a minute or two. Should costs be incurred, the existing user charge for custom officers' transportation would probably cover them.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, may I sum up my points for the consideration of this House.
First, the anomaly of forcing light aircraft to clear customs at busy international airports of entry at a time when the Department of Transport is encouraging pilots to use smaller airports is ludicrous.
Second, in view of the fact that many nontrained personnel such as university students are now being deputized as customs officers

during the busy summer months, any argument that a precedent would be established is nullified.
Third, American flying tourists intent on visiting Canadian outlying areas would be able to plan their flights on a more practical direct route which would aid the economic development of small centres.
Fourth, the reduction of customs service which has recently taken place at a time when aviation activity is on the increase is a severe deterrent to Canadian tourist trade.
Fifth,, a survey of airports of entry in Canada indicates that many growth centres will suffer needlessly unless this motion is adopted and implemented. The number is impressive but I list a few of the cities which will be in trouble, such as St. John, N.B., Quebec City, St. Jean, Quebec, Smiths Falls, Brandon, Regina, Saskatoon, Florenceville, Swift Current, Lethbridge, Cranbrook, Castle-gar, Penticton, Chilliwack, and Pitt Meadows. Areas such as Portage La Prairie in Manitoba are now severely handicapped inasmuch as Winnipeg is the closest airport of entry.
There are many more points I would like to raise but time does not permit. I submit that the aviation industry stands ready through the many administrative officers to accept the challenge of participatory democracy. Responsible Canadians are prepared to serve this government and assist in reducing the heavy costs of governing. The practical approach suggested in this motion in no way reduces the effectiveness of customs and immigration control. On the contrary, the proposal contributes to increased air safety, now uppermost in the minds of us all.
A challenge is also presented to Canada's civil service, one of seriously placing the needs of the people of Canada in a priority position. It is my sincere opinion that the public service will rise to the occasion in the interests of essential services to Canadians at the grass roots level, and support my motion now before the house.


William Warren Allmand: May I ask the hon. member a question? Has he made a check to see whether the implementation of his proposal would conflict with any collective agreements that are now in force which would cover administrative and support personnel at the airports? In other words, he is suggesting that these people be also used as customs officers. As we know that many of our people working in transport now are unionized or under collective agreements, has he checked whether his
November 17, 1969

Customs Act
proposal would violate any of these collective
agreements?
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)


M. Ervin Pringle: I have done some checking and I would tell the hon. member that there are instances at the present time in Canada where non-customs employees are performing this service. I would also say that from my association with various flying associations and clubs, and from contact with private pilots I know, there is sufficient personnel at airports, in close proximity to customs offices, who would be quite prepared to do this work. If the hon. member is suggesting that a union matter is involved and that union spokesmen would say, "We are not going to do it, and neither are you," that may be so, but I feel that the public service would rise to the occasion and help the industry in the interests of progress in Canada.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the proposal put forward by the hon. member for Fraser Valley East (Mr. Pringle). I think it is an excellent one. However, I do not want to get caught in the crossfire between two government supporters. But I do wish to say that I am completely at a loss to understand the reasons behind the interruptions of the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. All-mand). Undoubtedly later on he will explain just what is bothering him. Perhaps he did not pay too much attention when the hon. member for Fraser Valley East began his address.
1 believe that the mover of the motion has raised an important point. It is not something earthshaking, but if adopted his proposal would be beneficial at a lot of smaller airports. I go further to suggest that at airstrips in northern parts of the provinces officers of the Lands and Forests Department might very well be deputized to handle customs matters.
As the hon. member for Fraser Valley East has said, the volume of tourists coming from the United States, particularly by air, is increasing. I know this from personal experience with the Muskoka airport. At the present time, it is served by a customs officer stationed in the nearby town of Bracebridge. When an incoming small aircraft from across the border intends to land there, the pilot must notify the Canadian customs of his expected time of arrival. Then, the customs officer has to close down his small office in Bracebridge, hire a taxi to take him to the
airport, and often has to keep the taxi waiting for 15 minutes to an hour until the aircraft lands and he has fulfilled his duties.
The result is that the incoming pilot has to pay a considerable amount for the transportation and waiting period of the officer in order to get customs clearance. In some cases when he has nothing to declare, the whole procedure is a waste of time. Yet he has to pay the bill for the time wasted. During this period the local customs office is closed and regular customers must wait for the return of the customs officer.
I see no reason why local people at such airports could not be deputized to handle customs matters. On a recent trip overseas I was quite amazed on landing at London, England, to find two doors in the arrivals area, one with a notice on it "Articles to Declare," and the other with a notice, "Nothing to Declare." It just happened that I had nothing to declare and so I went through the second door. I looked around for somebody to whom I could declare nothing. There was no one there but a sweeper. I asked him, "To whom do I make my declaration". He said, "You came in through the door "Nothing to Declare" and I said yes. He said, "Well, go on." To my mind this was a very strange situation, but it has an interesting parallel.
I do not know the percentage involved, but I do know that a large number of people passing through customs have nothing to declare, especially people who come into Canada in small aircraft. It is a waste of time to have a customs officer attend at an airport just to have some person say, "I have nothing to declare." At Muskoka airport the customs officer is doing his job as well as he can, but often he has to explain to irate, incoming tourists why they have to pay a bill for customs officer's transportation even though they have nothing to declare.
For some two years Hammond Transportation has been applying to have a customs warehouse for both highway and air transport authorized at Bracebridge, but for some reason or another the Department of National Revenue has been very hesitant about the matter. If anybody at all in that department happens to read the report of this debate, and I trust somebody will, I hope he will look over the file of Hammond Transportation and decide on this customs warehouse. It would be a great convenience to tourists.
There is another side to the coin, Mr. Speaker. For some time I have been hearing complaints at various conferences about
902

November 17, 1969
Customs Act
United States tourists who come to Canada in light aircraft which land on lakes in the northern parts of the province. These tourists then set up hunting and fishing camps, having brought in their own provisions and supplies. When they have completed their hunting or fishing, they head back to the United States without ever seeing a customs officer. As I say, this is not an occasional thing. It is becoming so serious that many hunting and fishing outfitters are concerned. Further, people interested in conservation are concerned at the catch which these people take out of the country.
This traffic is not all illegal because in most cases there is a Lands and Forests man in the area from whom they can get hunting and fishing licences. But having done that, these people feel no further responsibility to this country, and are of no benefit to it. We do not know what they bring in or what they take out. If a Lands and Forests officer were deputized to take customs declarations from these people, the situation would be covered. It would remove the fear of illegality or improper action with respect to hunting and fishing parties.
In the province of Ontario there is now a program to provide landing strips. In many cases these are just landing strips on a piece of level ground, with only a windsock as equipment. This program is designed exactly for that situation. In many cases lands and forests agents are present and could carry out the necessary duties in legally admitting people to the country and taking their customs declarations. They could also deal with people when they were leaving.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
I support completely the hon. member's notice of motion and think there is a perfectly good case for someone on behalf of the government standing up and saying that the motion will be accepted. I for one, and I think I speak for many of my colleagues, agree with this proposal. It is not a bill, but a resolution expressing an idea. Few notices of motions are accepted. I think this is a very good one which ought to be accepted. If accepted, it would draw to the attention of the government and the Department of National Revenue a situation that ought to be attended to. Departmental officials would know that the House of Commons is interested in this matter. If departmental officials want to draft the legislation differently, I suppose no one would object. I think, Mr. Speaker, that this 
is a perfectly good example of a notice of motion which ought to be accepted.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, I think this notice of motion certainly deserves general support. I am glad that an hon. member on the government side of the House raised this matter. I wish to call to the attention of the House the fact that the Saskatoon Board of Trade wrote to me in September-I beg your pardon; not to me but to Mr. Sidney Oliver, Director of Operations.


Mr. Mahoney:: The hon. member may have made a mistake, but I think it was he who obtained the action.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: The hon. member flatters me but I believe he is dead right. The Saskatoon Board of Trade wrote and complained about the changes to the newly adopted customs clearance schedule at Saskatoon Airport. They said that the schedule will prove to be of great inconvenience to many businessmen and private flyers alike and will also endanger the lucrative air charter business into and out of Saskatchewan. The latter goes on to say:
In case you are not aware . . . the Saskatoon airport is the only facility in Saskatchewan capable of handling large aircraft such as DC-8s and upwards. It is the officially designated alternate terminal for Air Canada DC-8 aircraft between Winnipeg and Alberta points. Runways in Regina are not sufficient for this purpose.
It is inconceivable that your office in Saskatoon would be closed at a time when a large charter or a re-routed aircraft had to land and custom clearance was unavailable.
Many charter flights are now being scheduled now for 1970 to Japan and Europe. They will be hampered by the regulations now set down.
Potash company aircraft and others flying into Saskatoon after 5:00 p.m. would be required to pay extra landing charges in Regina for customs clearance before continuing on to Saskatoon, and what happens if Regina is fogged in? This seems to us to be an unnecessary inconvenience and expense. The situation will worsen as the northern resource development increases.
The letter goes on to make a plea for adequate service for the city of Saskatoon. I think the government should be aware of the need for services in some of our smaller airports. The report accompanying the letter shows that in the period July to September, 1969, the total number of itinerant aircraft handled was 65 and the total number of charter aircraft was 10. The report lists the number of flights prior to 9 a,m. Monday to Friday, and the number of aircraft landings during the week end, that is on Saturday and Sunday. It also lists the number of aircraft
November 17, 1969

landings during the period when customs services are available between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday to Friday. During that period are listed 25 itinerant and 5 charter aircraft. The number of aircraft landings after 5 p.m. Monday through Friday is as follows: itinerant aircraft, 16; charter aircraft, 3. Those landing in the later period would be put to the added expense and inconvenience of finding customs officials and paying for their services so that clearance could be obtained. I fully support the hon. member in seeking to obtain adequate service at airports like this. There are not enough commissionaires at Saskatoon airport to look after it properly. There we have what is called a long-term parking place. I parked my car there last winter and someone stole the battery out of it.


An hon. Member:: Hard luck.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Is that funny? I have talked to people at the airport who say that because there is no protection for cars it is customary to have paint scratched off them, tires are slashed and because no commissionaire is on duty after midnight, gas is often stolen. I ask, what is there to prevent someone going to the landing-strip and stealing gas from an aircraft that may be parked there? Surely there ought to be round-the-clock protection for the property of the Department of Transport and for the property of those who use the services of the department in places like Saskatoon, Calgary, Edmonton, Regina, and so on. This is part of the service to which people who use the airport are entitled. We should upgrade the customer service at these airports, and not downgrade it.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, what business concern would downgrade services at the very time when its business was expanding? This is precisely what is being done. Air travel is on the increase. Airports in western Canada are being increasingly used, and when this is happening we are downgrading the services available. We are providing less protection for the customer who may for one reason or another have to leave his motor vehicle or goods at the airport. What we are really saying to the customer is, "Leave your things here at your own risk. If your motor vehicle is out of commission when you come back, if the paint has been scraped off and if the gas has been stolen out of your tank, that is just too bad for you. You may call a service truck and pay the fees necessary to get your car going again." By the same token we are
21362-58*
Customs Act
saying to the man who wants to use the customs facilties at the airport, "This is too bad for you. Pay for the cost of getting an official here and pay for his time; then you can get out of the airport and go on your way." I submit that is simply ridiculous.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)


Mr. Barney Danson (York North):: Mr. Speaker, this is a rather interesting debate. Perhaps it is not as earth-shattering as the debate that will develop with respect to the white paper on tax reform or debates wherein our foreign and defence policies are being reviewed. This debate deals with a facet of Canadian life which is of interest to many Canadian people. Perhaps it does not command the attention it deserves. The hon. member for Fraser Valley East (Mr. Pringle) is indeed a pioneer of the air age. Had he been born in another generation, I am sure that today he would be halfway to the moon. I think he has made a most imaginative proposal. The discussion that has surrounded this proposal has been most interesting and enlightening.
The hon. member for Parry Sound-Mus-koka (Mr. Aiken) suggested that lands and forests officials could be used in the province of Ontario. I might tell the hon. member that in his own constituency there is a lake-landing facility with customs facilities operating from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. As I found out to my discomfort this summer, R.C.M.P. are also stationed there. When they are available, they also could fill this role. That would be very interesting because these men are federal officials.
I do not think we realize the effect that operators of small, private aircraft are having upon our economy and society. I am particularly interested in the comments of the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka with reference to small aircraft operators from other countries poaching our fish. As a fisherman, I fear these people entering Canada. There are hundreds, possibly thousands of poachers using our virgin lakes in the north and I resent the fact that they are stripping these lakes.
There is another element of this question which concerns small aircraft. I refer to the bush pilot who is part of our Canadian heritage. This facet of Canadian development was exemplified recently in a movie starring James Cagney. These small aircraft are vital to our north. I am referring to the new frontiers in our northlands where there is noother means of transportation. The motion

November 17, 1969
Customs Act
before us deals with the people who operate these small aircrafts which are vital to opening up the north. This is also of vital importance to our tourist industry. A facet we seem to have overlooked is that which has built a great portion of the small aircraft industry in the United States. In this respect they are perhaps a generation ahead of us. Industrial expansion in the United States has to a very large extent moved out of the northeast corridor. The New England textile mills have moved into the south, the petrol industry has moved from Texas into the mid-west and the great national and international corporations have established branch plants near their raw materials and markets. The officials of these industries must commute by small aircraft. This is part of their everyday life. It does not affect everyone. Those who are dealing with far-flung businesses and have experience with the private jet or propeller aircraft and appreciate them. The private or corporate aircraft is a very important part of our industrial complex.
Canada is embarking upon a program of regional economic expansion. We should bear in mind what the hon. member for Fraser Valley East has said because he is opening up another facet of this program which will be very important to us. There is not much point in spreading our industries into the Mari-times, remote areas of Quebec, Ontario, the western provinces and even as far as British Columbia without providing the facilities with which to make them operative in the twentieth century. This is an important fact that we should not forget. We will be spending hundreds of millions of dollars to upgrade industry in outlying areas. This is how it should be. We must recognize the fact we are living in the latter part of the twentieth century. We have to deal with the communications systems that exist, of which private and corporated aircraft are a very important part.
The hon, member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave) mentioned the potash development in northern Sastatchewan. This is an indication of the way in which the world is moving. We should pay attention to the proposals suggested by my colleague the hon. member for Fraser Valley East and this matter should be seriously considered. It is with pleasure I support his motion.


Mr. D. W. Groos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I also support this motion. I do so for a number of reasons. First, I believe in the
[Mr. Danson.l
underlying principle of the suggestion made by my colleague, the hon. member for Fraser Valley East (Mr. Pringle), that we should by all practical means facilitate the visits of border-crossing aircraft to Canadian airports. I also believe we should plan on removing as best we can the numerous light aircraft from the vicinity of our high-density traffic, international airports. This was cogently pointed out by the hon. member.
I also believe in the practicality of the hon. member's suggestion that the government of Canada should deputize qualified personnel who are working in the vicinity of these airports to handle customs clearance. I go further and say I believe this principle, namely that of allowing government officials to double in brass or wear two hats, is one to which we should give more expression in the days ahead. It is not a new principle, Mr. Speaker. Customs and excise officers are already handling immigration checks at border-crossing points. I also have knowledge that there are part-time customs clearance officials handling customs clearance at some British Columbia ports. Your Honour may recall that I have on one or two occasions in this chamber suggested that this principle should be extended to lighthouse keepers in the vicinity of sports fishing grounds. They should be given the power and provided with the means and equipment to make searches of sports fishing craft and, if necessary, to arrest persons contravening our sports fishery regulations. By following this principle we can extend in a quick and comparatively inexpensive way the federal presence and provide services which the federal government ought to provide over the wide areas of Canada wherein they are required.
I do not want to leave hon. members with the impression that by asking properly qualified personnel to undertake additional tasks within their competency I am recommending they do so without proper compensation. Surely, the extra compensation required by this dual-tasking would be considerably less than a complete duplication of personnel. I must be brief because time is running out, Mr. Speaker. I close by reiterating that I subscribe to the thought behind the hon. member's motion. I believe in the principle of dual-tasking of properly qualified personnel. We should think of using this principle more in the future. I hope hon. members will see fit to vote on and pass this significant notice of motion.
November 17, 1969

[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
Mr. Warren Allmand (Noire-Dame-de-
Grace): Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to participate in this debate. Earlier today I asked two questions of the hon. member for Fraser Valley East (Mr. Pringle). The hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken) wondered out loud why I was asking those questions. He intimated that I opposed the motion of the hon. member for Fraser Valley East. The exact opposite is true. I support the hon. member for Fraser Valley East, and I asked my questions in order to emphasize some of the points which I thought he had not stressed sufficiently in his argument. I know that the hon. member for Fraser Valley East is one of the most experienced pilots in this House and that he has done more flying than most other members of Parliament; I did not want him to sit down without answering some important point relating to his motion. Under the rules of the House he has no right to reply in this debate and I wanted to make sure he had advanced what I thought to be two important considerations. I feel the hon. member for Fraser Valley East is looking forward in presenting his motion. Unfortunately, I believe the Department of National Revenue in introducing the policy it did last September was looking backward.
As the hon. member told us, the volume of flying in Canada is increasing in a phenomenal way. He gave the exact figures and told us that private flying will probably double or triple in the years ahead. If there is evidence that the government is adopting a policy which looks backward instead of forward, it is up to us to encourage the motion put forward by the hon. member for Fraser Valley East. I am not supporting him for any parochial reasons. I have examined the statement put out by the Department of National Revenue when the policy was changed. I understand that in only one private airport were the hours of attendance increased, namely, at St. Hubert in Montreal; the hours there had been from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. but under the new policy a 24-hour service was instituted. I do not know whether this was due to the fact that the St. Hubert airport is in the minister's constituency, but I would support the extension of hours anyway. What was done at this airport should have been done at many airports in the vicinity of Montreal.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The change may be accounted for by the fact that in this respect the
Customs Act
Department of Transport took over from the Department of National Defence last year.


William Warren Allmand: That may be the case. Anyhow, I would support the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Cote) if he had also extended the hours at the other airports. I think it was a wrong policy to restrict the hours of customs service at Lachute, St. Jerome, St. Jean, Shawinigan, Trois-Rivieres, Sherbrooke and Cowansville. These airports are essential in meeting the needs of the tourist industry and of those who come to Canada on vacation. Other hon. members have pointed out that recreational facilities in Canada ought to be used to a greater extent for hunting and fishing than they are at present. The policy adopted by the department in restricting the customs service on week ends is really, as I say, a backward-looking policy. As the hon. member has pointed out, most of the private flying is done between 5 p.m. Friday night and Monday morning. If a man has a private aircraft and wants to go fishing or hunting, of if he is making a visit to Sherbrooke or Trois Rivieres from the United States or from Toronto, he would likely choose a weekend


Barnett Jerome Danson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, those of us who live in Toronto do not consider crossing an international border in order to go to Trois-Rivieres or Sherbrooke.


William Warren Allmand: If the department continues this policy maybe we shall have to cross an international border when we go from Toronto to Montreal. The point put forward by the hon. member for Fraser Valley East, by others in the Conservative Party and the New Democratic Party, and by my hon. friend to the right-


An hon. Member:: To the rear.


William Warren Allmand: The hon. member who spoke on behalf of the NDP-I forget his constituency-


An hon. Member:: Saskatoon.


William Warren Allmand: -said that the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Mahoney) was dead right about something. I say it is better to be dead right than dead left. In all seriousness, I want to say that some of the arguments used by the department in favour of closing service at these airports are not valid. They said the decision was made because administrative officers had to be trained before they could be deputized as customs officials. However,

November 17, 1969
Criminal Code
during the summer, students and others are brought in to work as customs officers on a part-time basis and they do not need long or arduous training.


An hon. Member:: Question.


William Warren Allmand: The argument is not a good one. The department also stated that it has carried out a cost analysis and come to the conclusion that expenditure on these customs services was not warranted.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hour for private members' business has expired and I do now leave the chair. The House will resume at 8 p.m.
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 the motion of Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton) that Bill C-3, to amend the Criminal Code, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Melvin James McQuaid: Mr. Speaker, when the debate was adjourned at five o'clock I was relating what I conceived to be some of the dangers inherent in the bill, particularly in proposed section 267b. I pointed out that according to my interpretation of this provision its terms were wide enough to prohibit me as a private citizen, within the confines of my own home, from inciting even the members of my immediate family to hatred or contempt of any kind. I feel that this would be a very serious infringement of my privilege of free expression. I would agree that statements inciting hatred of any kind should certainly not be allowed to be expressed in public. On the other hand, I submit, and I propose so to argue very strenuously before the committee, that this provision should be restricted to statements made in public, and that I should be allowed to speak as I like within the confines of my own home.
I am supported in this contention by a statement made before the Senate committee that was studying the precursor of this bill on

April 22, 1969, as reported in report No. 7 of the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs of the Senate at page 148, in a brief presented by Professor H. W. Arthurs, who was at that time, and I presume still is, Associate Dean at Osgoode Hall Law School of York University. This man is very learned in the law; he made a very complete study of this matter prior to appearing before the Senate Committee, and I suggest his opinion should be given some weight. This is what his brief says regarding proposed section 267b of the Criminal Code:
Subsection (2) is also open to serious objection. There is no limitation as to the time, place, or circumstance of the communications which are forbidden. Surely we do not wish to come to the point where casual conversation, or even formal communication, within the confines of a selfrestricted group becomes a matter for regulation . . . The section, as drafted, invites snooping, an informer system, and ultimately an awareness by each citizen that words spoken by him may be reported to "Big Brother".
This is the danger I see in regard to this provision. I quite agree that a restriction of this kind has no place in casual conversation within the confines of a self-restricted group. I suggest to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner), and I will so suggest to the committee, that this section as drafted would be a very dangerous provision for Parliament to enact. Furthermore, as now drafted the bill is open to the interpretation that as soon as a police officer thought that a speaker at a public meeting was saying something that could possibly be considered as incitement, he would have authority under the bill to intervene and force the speaker to withdraw. I think that is a reasonable interpretation of this particular provision, and I contend that conferring such power would be very dangerous.
I have every respect for police officers. In many cases they are doing their best to carry out what is a very difficult job. But let me warn the House of the danger of giving police officers too much power. Despite the fact that most police officers are sincere, human nature being what it is there is a danger that they may not exercise with discretion the power conferred upon them. The Criminal Code provides that any person who, by speech or otherwise, incites a disturbance of any kind is subject to the penalties provided by the Code. But the big difference is this: under the Code a person must incite a disturbance, whereas under the terms of this bill a police officer in attendance at a public meeting has it entirely within his discretion
November 17, 1969

to stop a speaker proceeding if he thinks that such continuance might incite the audience.
I do not have anything more to say about the bill, Mr. Speaker, other than this. While we on this side of the House agree for the most part with the principle of the bill and are prepared to give it very close scrutiny in committee, I am not at all convinced that the present provisions of the Criminal Code do not already adequately cover the ground this bill is attempting to cover. Some may ask: "Well, what if it does? What harm is done if we also pass this bill?" To that argument I would reply that we must not clutter up the statute books of Canada with duplicate legislation.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
Heaven knows, the Criminal Code is already in bad enough shape in many respects; it is archaic, outmoded and outdated. I even venture to recommend to the Minister of Justice that he get to work as quickly as possible on revising the Code so that these outmoded, archaic and outdated provisions are removed. They are a source of confusion, and any lawyer practising today will confirm that our Code is cluttered by things that have absolutely no significance in present day circumstances. It would be a very serious mistake to enact another law covering something that the present Code covers; things this bill purports to cover. For that reason we propose to give the bill very close scrutiny in the committee. We will insist that expert evidence be presented to us in order that we may be convinced there is no duplication.


Mr. Mark MacGuigan (Windsor-Walker-ville):: Mr. Speaker, five years ago this month I was invited by the late Hon. Guy Favreau, then Minister of Justice, to become a member of what was formally appointed in the following January as the Committee on Hate Propaganda. At that time I was appointed to the committee. I was of the opinion that hate propaganda was not a very serious matter, if only because no reasonable person could take it seriously. I think it worthy of note that at that point I had never seen a piece of hate propaganda.
Subsequently, as a result of the work of the committee, along with other members I closely examined hate materials of a great many different kinds and variations that had been distributed in Canada. We studied the data of social psychology which made us aware of the effect which abusive and hateful material of this kind could have on society. In the course
Criminal Code
of our studies we naturally also reviewed the law. As a result the committee unanimously recommended to the Minister of Justice that certain changes be made in the Criminal Code of Canada. These changes are reflected almost exactly in the bill now before this House.
There are a few changes from the recommendations of the Cohen committee in the bill now before the House, but they are not matters of great importance except where they improve the bill, such as the additional requirement for the approval of the attorney general before a prosecution can be brought. In all major respects the bill and the recommendations of the Cohen committee are the same.
It is not a good idea to confuse political and legal truths with eternal verities, and I am hesitant to say anything which may sound that way. However, as a result of my experience, I believe that any person who approaches this subject with an open mind, and sees the material to which the committee was exposed, and holds the same basic value position, that is, that civil liberties are not absolutes but are to some extent modified by the rights of others in societies-I believe anyone who approaches the subject in this way will come to the same conclusion that we as members of the Cohen committee came to some five years ago.
The thrust of this bill is the creation of a legal concept of group defamation. All the clauses of the bill fit in, in some way or other, with this concept. In its purity, if I may put it that way, it is found in the definition which is described as the wilful promotion of hatred to be found in the proposed section 267b (2) of the Criminal Code. It is also found with some modifications in the offence described as public incitement of hatred. Group defamation as described by that definition must take place in public and must be such as is likely to lead to a breach of the peace.
This principle is also found in the offence which is described as advocating genocide. This section does not prohibit that which is prohibited in the Criminal Code, that is, murder; it does not prohibit the killing of an individual or members of a group. It prohibits a certain kind of advocacy or promotion of an idea which is intrinsically vicious, an idea that is often identifiable with the hypothesis that a possible solution to our social problems is the killing of members of a social group in whole or in part. It is the advocacy or promotion of this idea which the government

November 17, 1989
Criminal Code
proposes to make illegal by the Criminal Code of Canada.
This is also within the concept of group defamation. It goes beyond our normal understanding of that concept because it not only defames the group-there is defamation because the promoters of genocide would say a group was so unworthy and hateful it did not deserve to live any longer. It goes beyond the notion of group defamation to include the idea of killing, but it reflects the basic purpose of the whole amendment by incorporating the concept of group defamation.
It is interesting to note that the common law does not contain a concept of group defamation. Traditionally, of course, we have had an offence of defamation. It has been a matter for civil action. Defamation has, also, throughout the history of the common law involved a criminal action, one which could be brought by the state against those who defame others. I include both libel and slander when I use the term "defamation". Traditionally, the common law did not in this respect apply to a group. Those whose minds the common law reflected did not believe that it hurt a man when you said something about his group. Individually he could be hurt and his reputation could be ruined; therefore, he could be seriously affected by something which was said against him as a person. That is, if it were said that an individual was a liar or a dishonest man, this was something that could reflect on him. But if he was a member of group "X", and the statement was made that all the members of group "X" were liars, thieves, prostitutes or whatever, in the view of the common law this did not touch the individual.
It is now clear, in light of the new discipline of social psychology, that this is simply not true. We now know from our studies of society, and of individuals who have been adversely affected by a denigration of their group, that what is said against a group is something that is said about a man himself. It may not affect him directly, and its effect may depend on how directly he associates himself with his group, but what is said about his group affects him as well.
Our group associations are deep-seated and, naturally, as far as the individual is concerned, depend upon his tradition and upbringing. Social psychology can no longer, as the common law suggested, support the view that group defamation does not matter. We thus know from recent science that group defamation is a very serious thing indeed.

The interest, one might even say the right- although it does not yet exist legally-of a group, quite possibly a minority group, not to be defamed or to have their persons affected by what might be said about them as members of a group, should be protected.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
There is a real deficiency in the law. It simply does not take account, except in very tangential ways, of the members of a group. Some authorities believe that if a group is as large as 20 people the law might go that far, but when it becomes a multitude or a significant group in our society it is not protected. Therefore it is no exaggeration to say that our law, as it is now, really is not aware of group defamation.
We have an interest to be protected which is not now protected in our legal system. This would suggest that some protection should be put into the law. Before we can come to that conclusion with any certainty we must, as the Cohen committee did, look at the other side. We must see what adverse effects could result from inserting a concept of group defamation into our law, because any change made in our legal traditions could have a considerable effect on many aspects of our life. It would be foolish to assert that such legislation as this would not in some sense infringe on free speech. This is obvious, and was fully accepted by the members of the Cohen committee. Then the present offence of criminal defamation has the effect of limiting the free speech of an individual. Of course, all such offences have only a subsequent effect in that the act is committed before the penalty is attached. In other words, there are not prior restraints nor should there be. Yet it is quite reasonable to say there are limitations on free speech, because if there is anything men cannot say in social or individual dialogue without a legal consequence, then their liberty is infringed.
Is it wise to have this type of legislation which infringes on our existing freedom of speech? We cannot answer that question, I submit, unless we consider the other side of the question as well. We have a situation in which, while a man cannot slander another as an individual, he can do so as a member of a group. It is only by looking at the two interests which are to be protected together that we can hope to come to a reasonable solution.
I admit that if we introduce the concept of group defamation into our law, this would represent a greater curtailment of freedom of
November 17, 1969

speech than exist in the present law of criminal defamation. I would admit this because it appears to me that when one speaks in a more general or universal sense, which is the way normally one would speak about a group-the very notion of a group suggests that one must make a generalization about it and not just refer to a particular incident involving a particular individual-you get close to the area of philosophical thought, political generalization or religious opinion and argument. One then has gone further into generalization, so that there is a greater danger to free speech from a concept of group defamation than from a concept of individual or criminal defamation.
The fact, however, is that the legislation proposed to this House contains safeguards of a kind which have never been found in the common law. It was because of the greater danger to freedom of expression which occurs with the concept of group defamation that the Cohen committee recommended these safeguards. For example, the common law never had a defence of truth per se to a concept of defamation. It was never a defence to excuse yourself by saying something was true-civilly it was, but not criminally. This bill proposes that a person who can prove to the satisfaction of a court that his statements were true is exempt from any legal liability.
This legislation which would offer more than the traditional protection of the common law reads as follows:
(i)	that the statements communicated were true, or
(ii)	that they were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and that on reasonable grounds he believes them to be true.
I would be the first to admit of subsection (ii) that it is not crystal clear, and undoubtedly the members of the committee in their consideration will look at all such details of this bill. It is, however, the traditional statement of the common law in statutory form in our present Criminal Code. It is the one which in respect of criminal defamation has been found to give more or less adequate protection to the interests of freedom of speech.
In addition, this bill provides-and this is new provision over and above the recommendations of the Cohen committee-a further exemption for a person who expresses in good faith and in decent language, or who attempts to establish by argument used in good faith and conveyed in decent language, an opinion upon a religious subject. The whole realm of
Criminal Code
religious opinions, provided they are held in good faith and expressed in decent language, is exempt from the effect of this bill.
These are very considerable limitations upon the possible scope of the bill, but in my opinion they are limitations which are fully justified and which indeed are made necessary by the very desire to protect to the widest feasible extent the freedom of expression which truly is a very important part of our democratic heritage. Similarly, in respect of the offence of public incitement of hatred there are protections. These protections have not been noticed, I might add, in all of the discussion which has revolved around this bill. Recently, for example, we had a newspaper editorial-I do not seem to have the editorial but I can refer to it from memory- to the effect that if at a recent hearing of the Gendron commission someone had uttered a word of English, because the audience was composed of French-speaking people who were in a very hostile mood toward the English the speaking of the word of English and the consequent uproar would make the utter-er of the word of English guilty of an offence. This is the sheerest nonsense.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
First of all, it is rather unlikely that this type of group will be protected. The type of group which is under the protection of this legislation is distinguished by colour, race, religion or ethnic origin. The government has dropped the notion of "linguistic group" which the Cohen committee suggested should also be given protection. It has also dropped the notion of "national origin" which was recommended by the Cohen committee for inclusion in the definition of the protected group. But much more important, any utterance which would lead to liability has to be one which would objectively, that is to the mind of the reasonable man, be considered to be one inciting hate or contempt, one which is viciously abusive of the opposing group.
It is true that in England in the Burgoyne case the court, interpreting similar legislation, held that you have to take the crowd as you find it and that the crowd is not subject to the test of a reasonable man, so that if you say something which will disturb one crowd and not another you will be guilty if you say it before the more volatile crowd. But that applies only if what you have said is itself objectively abusive. If it is not objectively abusive, if it would not be abusive to the

November 17, 1969
Criminal Code
mind of a reasonable man, no liability is possible. That is why so much of the interpretation which has been given to this section and so much of the argument which has surrounded it has been wide of the mark. As a matter of fact, if I may draw the attention of the Minister of Justice to this, there is a section in the Criminal Code which does not have the same protections. It is section 160 which reads as follows:
Every one who ... causes a disturbance in or near a public place, by ... using insulting or obscene language,... is guilty of an offence punishable on a summary conviction.
It does not apparently have the same type of protections with which we have surrounded this bill. The section on genocide also well protects the interests of any who are concerned that their freedom of expression will be reduced by this bill, because here we see the operation of the broad section of the bill defining the group which is protected, which as I have mentioned is any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion or ethnic origin.
It must be a Canadian group, "a section of the public"-that is the Canadian public -and only such a section of the public which is distinguished by one of those four qualifiers. The definition of genocide is also extremely limited. Of the five-part international definition, three parts of which were retained by the Cohen committee in their recommendations, only two parts now remain in the bill which is before us. They include an act of killing members of the group or one of deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction. Much of the argumentation which has revolved around this proposal related to the earlier version of this bill which was introduced in the Senate, but the bill was amended there and is now presented in its revised form to the House.
There are those who feel that a government which is as dedicated as was this government last year to keeping the law out of the household, out of the domestic community, is being inconsistent if it proposes in another bill to make illegal something such as the distribution of hate propaganda which would conceivably occur in private circumstances- not of course under the public incitement of hatred charge, but under the wilful promotion of hatred section. It is argued that the state should have no role therein. I do not believe that anyone has ever contended that there is any area of human conduct which is completely exempt from the reach of the law. It

is pretty obvious that if there were a murder in a house this act would fall under the present criminal law of Canada.
The question to which we must address ourselves is, what is the public interest even in a situation which may be a relatively private one: is this a matter in which there should be a continuing public interest or is it a matter which is better left to the disposition of the parties involved? I believe that there is such a public interest in the matter of hate propaganda. I believe this because it is indeed a serious matter.
Some critics of the Cohen report have said that the distribution of these materials across Canada has not been so very wide after all, only some 20 or 30 communities have been affected. They have been among our largest cities, but only a limited number of cities have been affected and only a limited number of people have even seen hate propaganda. One of the special techniques of the purveyors of this horrible material is to send it to the members of the group which is being attacked-not to distribute it to the public at large but to seek out deliberately members of the Jewish or Negro community and to send the material to them.
Some have thus argued that because of the limited distribution of these materials and because of the limited number of years over which distribution has occurred-although it is continuing and we have no reason to think it is going to stop-because of the limited number of people who have been involved in its distribution, and because indeed of the limited number of different hate publications, this is a matter which is not serious. I dispute that view.
This is a serious matter, not perhaps quantitatively but certainly qualitatively. It is a serious matter because of what it may do to brutalize the sensitivities of the majority group to the feelings of the minority. Over a period of time, as a result of the constant distribution of this kind of material, it may make the majority unaware of the feelings of the minority. In some cases it may indeed be sufficient further to inflame an already prejudiced majority against a particular minority, at least in a particular community.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
But it is not the effect on the majority of the public which is the most serious. What makes hate literature so intrinsically awful is the effect which it can have on the minority group, the fact that as a result of a constant series of encounters which involve hate
November 17, 1969

propaganda-and indeed which come as well from other sources in a society-a group can be made to feel completely unworthy, completely inhuman. We know, from what we now see in the United States, that when a group is thus affected its reaction may turn into aggression. When this happens, obviously the problem is brought very forcibly to our attention. When the negroes, a group which has been subject to so much of this vilification in the United States, rather than turn the other cheek turn to violence, this is when our society sits up and takes notice. At this point the majority can no longer ignore the feelings which the minority have.
But, Mr. Speaker, instead of turning to aggression, which makes the matter clear to all of us, the minority can turn within itself; it can retreat upon itself; it can be affected internally; it can be affected in such a way that it is unable to function properly in society. I would not want to build up a case which suggests that these hate materials are the only cause of this kind of effect in our society. Obviously this is part of a larger problem which the institutions of law cannot deal with completely. Hate propaganda is not the whole problem of hating. Law is not the only solution to hate in our society. But hate propaganda is an important part of the problem and law is one of the most effective ways in which our society can deal with it.
This is not only because of the effect of law itself through proscribing a particular offence, through making it go underground if you will, though if the law does this it achieves its purpose in part because if hate material goes underground and ceases to be circulated the law has achieved what it is trying to do. But it is not only the punitive effect of law which is important; there is also the educational effect. If the punitive effect is not justified, the law would not be justified for its educational effect alone. But given the validity of the punitive effect of the law, which I believe is here amply justified, the educational effect must not be ignored.
In this law we have an appeal to the conscience of the Canadian people, an appeal to all of us to put our convictions in writing, in the Criminal Code of Canada, to make them part of the moral code of our society and to display them in a way which will be plain not only to ourselves but also to those of the minority group who may be attacked by less well informed and less well intentioned members of society.
I submit in conclusion that in this age we can no longer ignore psychological effects. We
Criminal Code
can no longer think that the law has to deal only with the obvious things. This is an age which is becoming increasingly more subtle, and the means both punitive and educational by which the law deals with social problems must also grow in subtlety. This bill, I submit, is an example of a new subtlety in the law.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, I must say that I most certainly agree with the statement made this afternoon by my colleague from Greenwood that Bill C-3 is entering into a very sensitive area of legislation. I believe that I fully understand and appreciate the motive behind the introduction of this bill. I feel absolutely safe in saying that every member of this House despises the dissemination of hate whether it is by voice or by writing. However, sir, having said that I have some doubts about the application of the bill should it become law.
I believe there are some questions that need to be answered, some problems upon which we need more information. I am one of those who think that you cannot legislate hate from the minds and the hearts of mankind. I am one of those who believe that in order to completely eliminate hate from mankind we will require in our country a change in environment, in atmosphere, and indeed in the form of society itself.
I believe this is similar to the fact that you cannot legislate out of the minds of some people a desire to gamble, a desire to smoke cigarettes or to enjoy alcoholic drink. Admittedly, we do have legislation that tries to control certain aspects of gambling and the use of hard liquor, so I assume that the purport of this legislation is to try to control the dissemination of hate attitudes and literature. But there is a difference between trying to legislate control in the sensitive field that we are now discussing and trying to do it in the field of gambling, etc.
Some of the questions which I think have not been answered are: just what is the line of demarcation between liberty and licence? What would be the line of demarcation as to what would be permissible and what would not be permissible in the individual or collective expression of a strongly held point of view, whether by voice or by demonstration?
I imagine the answer would be, "The decision will be made by the attorneys general of our country, and by the judiciary." That would not satisfy me, Mr. Speaker, because in the past we have known attorneys general to give different interpretations of the same law. Just prior to the amendments we made to the

November 17, 1969
Criminal Code
Criminal Code last session I do not believe there were two attorneys general in Canada who made the same interpretation or took the same action with respect to such a simple matter as the law dealing with bingos and raffles. Of course, when it comes to the judiciary there are examples galore of how different judges interpret the law. On the one hand you may find a man who has stolen millions being fined-that being nothing more than a licence to steal-being given a few months in jail or two or three years in the penitentiary. On the other hand you may find a hungry man who has stolen a loaf of bread receiving a suspended sentence or being punished with the full weight of the law. These differences arise from differences in interpretation and application of the law. Often we find that judges in different parts of the country hand down different sentences for similar crimes committed in similar circumstances. I hope, and I believe others share my hope, that sentences will be meted out and decisions handed down according to an accepted principle, and that these sentences and decisions will not vary from coast to coast.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
It is important for us to consider the question of hate. Hate is not new in our society; it arises from antagonisms and to some extent from policies of governments. Those policies engender the antagonisms which sometimes develop into hate. Indeed, how can one forget that a quarter of a century ago the Japanese in our country were uprooted, interned and not treated as good citizens. Their assets were sold at give-away prices. Nevertheless, in this country at that time not one Japanese was found to be a spy or saboteur. But the government's policy engendered antagonism and hate.
I see the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) looking at me. I remind him that not too long ago we had in force a quota system governing the entrance to Canada of immigrants from many countries. Many who lived here were unable to bring in their loved ones, even though they came from some part of the famed British Commonwealth of Nations. Need I remind hon. members that until a few years ago the Chinese, East Indians and native Indians of democratic Canada did not have a vote. The government has a responsibility in this field, because antagonism and discrimination are the forerunners of hate Luckily the circumstances I have alluded to have now changed. Government policy has changed; there is no longer a quota system,

and citizens of various countries desiring to be admitted to Canada have the right to apply for admission and to be considered. Under our federal law all people except those who are under 21 years old or who are state wards in insane asylums and penitentiaries have the right to vote. Having lived in Canada since I was three years old, I have become convinced that with the change in government policies and the removal of prejudice and discrimination, a new attitude has dawned among our people. By removing discrimination we have removed those antagonisms that lead to hate. Those words apply particularly to ethnic groups as well as individuals.
During my childhood, and indeed up until a few years ago, one could note the existence of antagonisms and hate on Canada's Pacific coast. For instance, an Italian was a Dago, a Chinese a Chink, a Japanese a Jap, a Scandinavian a Bohunk and a Catholic a Dogan. Such terminology applied to human beings brought about an atmosphere of antagonism and hate.
In the last few years the use of these terms, in my area of the country at least, has died out. Very rarely do you hear now such terms used. The result is that we live in a better atmosphere. A better environment has brought with it a lessening of hate. I feel certain that these great advances have been made through education and understanding, and that greater advances will be made in the future. Eighteen months ago hardly a week went by when I did not receive despicable and vicious hate communications. By invoking a section of the Post Office Act dealing with scrurrilous literature I was able to stop the flow of some of this literature. Now I can say that I have not had a letter of this type for the last year-not one. That leads me to believe that in our country we are experiencing a greater degree of human feeling, understanding and brotherhood. For that reason I think we ought not to tackle this matter so much by legislation as by education.


An hon. Member:: Bight.


Harold Edward Winch: We will solve this problem by improving the national environment and atmosphere. I believe that education is as important as legislation in this field. Instead of asking our attorneys general and our judges to make decisions in these areas, we would be better employed in trying to bring about greater intermingling between the various ethnic groups in this country. Let us try to avoid isolating ethnic communities, even in
November 17, 1969

our urban areas. I believe most strongly that you cannot do those things by legislation alone. If we want to counteract the effects of antagonism and hate in this country, let us stop calling ourselves English Canadians, French Canadians, Italian Canadians, Chinese Canadians or Japanese Canadians. Let us call ourselves Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Harold Edward Winch: In that way we can do more good in this country than we can by any legislation.
It is because of my feelings in this matter and because I have the honour of representing a riding which contains the largest number of ethnic Canadians west of Toronto -a riding which contains thousands of Italians, Chinese, Ukrainians, Scandinavians and people of Germanic origin-that I find myself in a somewhat difficult position this evening. Because of the views I have tried to express, I hesitate to support second reading of this bill. At the same time I recognize that there still exists a problem. I recognize and appreciate the motive which is activating the Minister of Justice. Because of this I do not feel I can vote against the bill.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
Hon. members will understand how great my interest will be in the hearings, discussions and deliberations of the standing committee of this House of Commons to which this bill will be referred. I hope the committee will not only consider this bill but all aspects of hate and the dissemination of hate. I hope as a result of its deliberations a recommendation will be made to this House which will include the two suggestions of the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin), namely, the injunction policy and a policy of committee review if this bill becomes law so that judgments can be made on the experience gained from its application. We will then learn whether the bill has provided the right approach to the problem.
I do not have a closed mind on the issue before us. It is one of great concern to us all. I hope the minister and the government will be amenable to the suggestion of a full study by the committee. I hope some thought will be given to policies of greater education, integration and achieving more understanding among our people. Some hon. members might feel I am indulging in wishful thinking and idealism, maybe cliches, platitudes, generalities or whatever term they like to use but, Mr. Speaker, I feel most intensely that the
Criminal Code
solution to this violent, vicious problem will only be achieved by a changed environment, atmosphere and society. Each and every one of us should do our part in expressing two main points of view. First, a wonderful way to abolish the attitude of hate by an individual or a group is to place less emphasis on preaching the principles of Christianity and to start putting them into practice; second- and this is a repetition of what I said-in the final analysis the solution to the problem is a recognition that irrespective of where we were born, our colour, race or religion, the future of Canada relies upon our being proud that we are Canadians.


Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, as the representative of the federal constituency of Parkdale, within whose boundaries live many people who suffered persecution because of their race, religion, ethnic or national origin, and whose relatives and friends were victims of genocide, I consider it my duty to participate in this debate.
During this discussion on Bill C-3, amending the Criminal Code and indeed strengthening it to deal with the dissemination of varieties of hate propaganda, I wish to commend the government, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) and his predecessors for proposing this legislation. We also owe our deep gratitude to those of our colleagues who have served in this House and the other place, to all organizations, churches, writers and individuals in our country who have clamoured for and supported the principles of this legislation.
For those who have survived the Nazi concentration camps and for those of us who have visited these camps or who have firsthand contact with people who have suffered racial, ethnic or religious persecution, this legislation has not come too soon. After visiting the Nazi concentration camp of Auschwitz with some of my colleagues from this House, I cannot understand the indifference of so many people, especially those who have tried to delay this legislation and those who are indifferent to the victims of Nazi persecution.
There are still many people in our country who suffer the effects of the tortures, persecution and the memories of an evil society that failed to exercise its conscience in the face of moral perversion. While many have suffered because of anti-semitism, I wish to emphasize that hate propaganda affects Canadians of all origins. If anything, recent

November 17, 1969
Criminal Code
history has taught us that racial hatred and inter-group hostility cannot be confined within tight limits, but appears to be frequently seeking new targets.
The terrible risks of anti-racial incitement, while at present directed only against a few groups are a threat to all Canadians. It is no exaggeration to say, Mr. Speaker, that however confident we are of the strength of our democracy, any hate movement, if it is not stopped, bears within itself a potential threat to our society. While we may feel certain that the healthy fabric of our democratic society will be able to withstand the assault of hate propaganda, surely our citizens have the right to protection against this affront to basic human dignity. Canadian citizens should be able to live in this country without being submitted to vicious baiting and incitement which is degrading to the whole concept of the human personality. A just society must be able, through law, to offer its citizens at least this minimal protection and safeguard.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
Every law is in some way an encroachment on certain freedoms but I believe Canadians as a whole have been ever conscious of the need to preserve their precious heritage of liberty, freedom of speech and freedom of expression. Only in the context of such freedom shall we be able to preserve our society from the disease of hatred and prejudice which can destroy our nation.
Bill C-3 follows several pieces of legislation introduced by Canadian governments and enacted by the Canadian Parliament to protect human rights and the dignity of the individual. I believe this bill discharges Canada's obligation to the United Nations convention on the crime of genocide which was tabled in this House on March 2, 1950, and approved by resolution of both Houses in 1952. This law and others like it will not eliminate those whose twisted minds lead them to sow hatred and spew the venom of racial prejudice and hatred. Such despicable behaviour and thought are symptoms of racial tension. I consider this lunatic behaviour to be a dangerous poison which must be eliminated.
We should seek out the causes of such behaviour and eliminate them as soon as possible. In this task, education in good citizenship and devotion to the principles of justice, tolerance, mutual understanding and respect are necessary. Every Canadian must look into his conscience and be ever vigilant against the subtle infection of prejudice; our
[Mr. Haidasz.l
happiness and survival as a nation demand it. That is why this evening I should like to appeal to all in the chamber to support the legislation now before us, to make sure it gets a good hearing in committee and, finally, to approve its passage in this House.


David Lewis: I want to say a few words on this bill, Mr. Speaker, because of the importance which it obviously has, and because, like so many others in this House, I have studied for some years the problem with which it deals. I want to begin by saying that I greet with pleasure the concern evident all around this chamber about the infringement of freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. 1 think I can say that the members of the party to which I belong, those who will sit on the committee which is to consider this bill, will enter into the discussion with open minds and a determination to support any reasonable additional safeguards, if such are proposed, to make certain that the bill cannot be abused in such a way as to abridge freedom of speech or freedom of assembly, provided this does not hurt the objectives which this measure seeks to realize.
To all hon. members who have spoken along this line, and whose judgment I respect, and to all those who gave evidence before the Senate committee on this bill, whose judgment I respect, I want to say we should not allow ourselves to be blinded by generalizations in such a way as not to deal with abuses of freedom which threaten civilized behaviour and the social fabric of a civilized society. There is a danger-and certain episodes in recent history have shown this to be the case-that genuine democrats become so complacent about freedom and democracy that they permit those who are determined to destroy freedom to abuse the democratic rights and eventually to cast down democratic society itself.
There is a great deal of talk about whether or not the present criminal law is adequate. I am not an expert in criminal law, Mr. Speaker, and I do not pretend to be; my legal practice has been in another field. Nevertheless, I have read carefully the report of the Cohen committee and the appendices to that report, and I have had occasion over the last number of years to read the opinions of eminent lawyers in the criminal field all of whom are agreed, as the report puts it at page 40:
In sum it is evident that the Criminal Code even on the widest interpretation does little or nothing to protect groups from the evils of hate propaganda.
November 17, 1969

I suggest that these studies and this conclusion are sufficient at least to cast doubt on the assumption that the present law covers the situation. Since there is doubt about it, surely one cannot oppose an attempt to clarify the situation and remove that doubt by enacting specific legislation to deal with the particular subject with which we are concerned.
The other point I wish to make is that as a matter of fact, and this is surely important, a great many civilized democracies in the world have enacted this kind of law-LAW-countries and societies which respect freedom of expression and freedom of assembly just as much as we do, and which have found it necessary, particularly since the end of the second world war, to take action along these lines. I have in mind the Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark, France, Norway, Switzerland and the United Kingdom, to mention only a few, all of which have introduced legislation to deal with group defamation and the spreading of hatred based on race or religion or ethnic origin.
My fourth point is that we have an international obligation to pass a law similar to the bill which is before us. As the hon. friend for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) pointed out, on November 21, 1963, a United Nations declaration against discrimination was adopted unanimously. Canada was there, and voted for it. Article IX of that declaration-my hon. friend read part of it-required member nations to take immediate and effective measures, including legislative and other measures, to prosecute and/or outlaw organizations which promote or incite racial discrimination or incite or use violence for reasons based on race, colour or ethnic origin. We voted for this declaration. We gave an undertaking that in our own country we would make laws along these lines. If I remember correctly, the convention concerning genocide, adopted in 1949, was ratified in both Houses of Parliament in 1952. In that convention on genocide, articles IV and V require the contracting parties to undertake to enact in accordance with their respective constitutions legislation to give effect to the provisions of the convention and in particular to provide effective penalties against persons guilty of genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
I do not say this is conclusive, but it seems to me that one of the things we suffer from in this world is this: Members of the United Nations vote for international conventions and for international undertakings; this
Criminal Code
implies that member states should do something to implement such undertakings. Nevertheless, when the representatives at the United Nations return home, nothing is done in this regard. This is one of the evils of the present situation that we ought to rectify. Having undertaken these international obligations, I would suggest to hon. members that we have a duty to carry them out.
I wish that this kind of law were not necessary. I wish I could share entirely the optimism of my hon. friend and colleague from Vancouver East (Mr. Winch). However, it has been my experience, perhaps because I am a member of one of the minority groups affected by hate propaganda, that racial and religious prejudice is present in most people just beneath the skin and that it does not take very much to evoke some active expression of racial or religious prejudice.
I forget exactly when, but some months ago one of the Toronto papers took a survey of school children at high schools and public schools in Toronto and found there was a disturbing and widespread form of racial prejudice against Negroes, Jews and other minority groups. So I suggest it is a mistake to assume that this kind of prejudice cannot exist in Canada. I am confident that under present circumstances in the world today

I say this without reservation-Canada is one of the freest of communities and societies. Its society is less cursed with the kind of active and overt racial and religious prejudice that is existent in other societies. But it is a mistake to be complacent about this. It is a mistake not to realize that it is there none the less. This curse of racial and religious prejudice is present in our society today. The hon. member for Vancouver East indicated in his speech that the expressions "Dagos", "Japs", "Chinks", "Sheenys" and "frogs" have now disappeared. With all respect to the hon. member, I wish what he said v/ere true, but it is not.
Too often one finds it is possible for the best of people with the broadest of outlook to give expression to the sort of thing that feeds racial prejudice and religious antagonism, and this sometimes unconsciously. I have been in the company of people who were aware of my origin, and some of the "best" people in the gathering made jokes about the Jews, or about the "niggers", or somebody else, which shocked me because I was sensitive to this sort of thing. No doubt they would not raise anything to hit me on the head; I have no fear of that. Nevertheless it is a fact-every

November 17, 1969
Criminal Code
member of the House who is objective about this knows it to be a fact-that our society is not yet clear of this sort of prejudice. Our society is still full of the sort of antagonism that is based on racial, ethnic and religious grounds, and these antagonisms are transmitted to our children. There are teachers still in our schools who are guilty of this sort of thing; it has not been eradicated.
My thinking on this subject has always been affected by personal experience in the early 1930s. At that time I was studying in England and had occasion to visit Germany as a student. At that time I spoke German fairly fluently. I visited various parts of Germany and saw what was happening there, particularly in the summer of 1934. When I returned to Oxford and made some speeches about what I had seen, people in the audience would frequently come up to me and say: "Oh, come on, David! Don't exaggerate. The Germans are cultured people, highly educated. They are a scientific race. Sure, this crazy guy Hitler has been promoting these ideas, but the majority of the German people cannot possibly accept them. How can a cultured people that nourished Goethe and Beethoven accept this kind of nonsense?"


An hon. Member:: The great, silent
majority.


David Lewis: The great, silent majority, as someone at the back suggests. All this is history now. 1 think no country can boast greater tolerance than Great Britain, but even in that country it did not require much immigration of coloured people to have a minister of the Crown defeated on that very issue, as was Patrick Gordon Walker. There have also been near-riots as a result of this kind of racial discrimination.
When 1 returned from England in 1935 and made the same kind of statements to people in Canada, I got the same reaction. Such a suggestion was incredible. The fact is that decent people have not the evil imagination that can conceive of the kind of terrible things that happened in Germany, or that happen in South Africa or Rhodesia. Although we read about them and understand the situation, it is very difficult for us to conceive, in our feelings and in our emotions, of people acting in this way. However, history has shown that people do act in this way.
Some 30 or more years ago a book was written by a great theologian and teacher of ethics in a Christian seminary in the United

States, and I am sure the name is familiar to all members of this House, Reinhold Niebur. The title of his book is "Moral Man and Immoral Society". The thesis proposed by the book, which has been proven sociologically time and again by history, relates to what an individual in his own home and in his private behaviour may not be prepared to do but who, if he is a member of a mob in a certain sociological and economic situation, will do such things. The evil that is in him will come to the forefront as a member of the mob in a way that would never happen when he is merely a private citizen. Social conditions which produce that kind of expression can occur in any country, including this great country.
I ask hon. members to take every precaution possible to defend freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. Let us take every precaution possible to prevent the abuse of legislation so as to abridge such freedom unnecessarily and unjustifiably. But I beseech hon. members not to sit complacently in their seats and think that in this great Canadian society we do not need to worry about this problem, because we do. If we are to build a genuine, even better civilized society than we have now, we must deal with this matter. I make no apology for saying that I know of no greater social evil than racial and religious prejudice and intolerance. There is no greater evil.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
I can and do criticize the social evils in our society that are derived from economic inequality, from social inequality, from inadequate treatment of the poor and from the great, and I consider unnecessary, concentration of economic and with it of political power in the hands of a group that is not responsible to the people. All these are evils against which, with or without the approval of the majority of the people in Canada, some of us have fought all our lives and will continue to fight. These are evils derived from society as a whole. They are not equal to the vicious evil which is racial prejudice, racial antagonism, religious prejudice and religious antagonism. I say this as dramatically as I know how, Mr. Speaker.
No society can ever be quite civilized so long as there is in it that kind of prejudice and intolerance. Who could disagree with the eloquent and relevant language of my colleague, the hon. member for Vancouver East, who said that education is more important
November 17, 1969

than this law? I do not disagree with that and I do not think anyone could. Obviously you cannot legislate hatred out of people. You might be able to legislate other things, including some of the things he mentioned, but you certainly cannot legislate hatred out of people. You can do that only as society improves its environment and its administration and as our educational system does its job more adequately for our children. This situation will continue a couple of generations before that end can be accomplished, and I hope it will be accomplished in years to come. There is value in legislation, none the less.
I would be surprised if the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) claims for his bill the attribute that it will solve the problem of racial discrimination or the spread of hatred. I am sure he does not claim that. I am sure he is as aware as the rest of us that much more will have to be done in society. But there is value in legislation, particularly in legislation which takes the necessary safeguards against abuse. I should like to mention three obvious results of good legislation along this line. The first relates to those people who follow the leadership of hatred peddlers. Among them are a good many people who are innocent and decent but have been sold an idea. I have met many of them at my doorstep in the religious sphere. I have met some of them who are anti-Semitic and I have met some who have talked about the negro in a manner in which it is uncivilized to speak. Many of those I have met are not really vicious people; they have been sold a bill of goods and have accepted it.
I suggest that legislation on the statute books will tell those otherwise decent and law-abiding citizens who have been sold a bill of goods that what they have been doing is contrary to the moral sense of the society in which they live, and is against the law. Many of these people will simply quit because it is against the law, and that is what the law is for. That is the first obvious consequence which is desirable in any society.
The second thing is that those who have no regard for the law, and those who will not be influenced by an appeal to morals in our society, will have the dissemination of this literature stopped by law. The third and equally important result of legislation like this is what several members, and most eloquently if I may say so, the hon. member for Greenwood pointed out, namely, the educative value of the presence of the law on the
Criminal Code
statute books of the country. If we enable the teachers of the country to point to this law in the classrooms, there will be great educational value to it. The hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan) also stressed and emphasized this important point.
Finally, I say that every law can be and has been abused. I know of no good law that has not known abuse in the past, and I imagine none in the future will ever know the lack of abuse. We have the Unemployment Insurance Act, a piece of social legislation obviously of importance to people who are unemployed, but it has been abused. It has been abused by people who take advantage of the law and by those who administer it whose hearts were often in the wastebasket and whose heads were somewhere else than on their shoulders. One can think of no law, no matter how good, which has not been abused by administrators, by the judiciary, by lawyers and by citizens of the community.
However, the possibility of abuse should not stand in the way of a law which is socially necessary and desirable. This should make us do everything we can to provide all possible safeguards against the likelihood of abuse. Having done the best we can, we ought to pass the legislation and make it the law of the land. I wish this kind of law were not necessary in Canada or anywhere else in the world, but I am afraid I am pessimistic enough to think it will be needed for some years to come.


Mr. Hyl Chappell (Peel South):: Mr. Speaker, I shall be brief.


Mr. Fortin:: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Lot-biniere on a question of privilege.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I would like that together we take the count of those who have taken part in the debate on Bill C-3. I wish to point out that only one Creditiste member has spoken on the subject and that many others would like to do so before the debate comes to a close. To maintain proportions, it might now be in order to let the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise) speak.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member knows that, according to Standing Orders, the Chair has the exclusive right to recognize the speaker who will take part in the debate. The hon.

November 17, 1969
Criminal Code
member who has risen on a question of privilege must take into account, not only the number of members in each political group, but other considerations as well which have prompted the Chair to recognize the hon. member for Peel South (Mr. Chappell).


Hyliard G. Chappell: Mr. Speaker, I shall be quite brief. Many fine arguments have been advanced in favour of the bill. I shall not repeat those but will add one more. I have been pleased to study the bill, and I have read a number of letters from various groups. Some of those letters expressed the fear of an invasion of private rights; others contained imagined reasons for fear, and still others showed or contained sheer emotional nonsense. I think all these people are entitled to be reassured, and for that reason I now speak.
I cannot see anything to be concerned about. The bill intends to curb the intended activity of an individual by making it a crime to make a vicious attack on a group. This bill is an attempt to prevent a criminal act which is about as anti-social as any activity could be, and I have noticed that those who oppose the bill do not come from any minority group.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
Let us hope it will never be necessary to use this new legislation or the power provided by it; or if this does become necessary, let us hope that very seldom shall we have to use this power. Surely in a nation as advanced as Canada the time has come to state in the form of a statute that we stand very firmly against such behaviour. If we do this we may lead the way for other nations.
I support the bill. My only regret is that it does not go further and supply some restraint against those who recklessly, and often with venom perhaps because of their own distorted thoughts, attack individuals. The bill covers certain groups. The individual is not covered. At times an individual is unable to defend himself, perhaps because of his position in society or because he cannot afford the expense of fighting a libel action, if that should be a sufficient means of fighting back.
When a man's reputation has been destroyed, is it good enough to say to him that he can institute a libel action and perhaps receive a judgment in the amount of $5,000? We must realize that many of those who would attack someone in this way usually are judgment-proof; in other words, the judgment or assessment cannot be recovered.

I suggest that today the libel action is obsolete in respect of protecting a man's reputation. There was a time when if a person committed slander or libel he was faced with paying a lawyer and proving his statements or paying damages. Today the situation probably is that the man who is libelled pays a lawyer and commences an action, while the man who was responsible for the libel is carried by legal aid and thereby does not pay. If he does not have any money, he is unable to pay a judgment against him. The person who has been libelled has been involved in a great deal of time and expense in defending himself.
This is one step, but I believe we must take the next step. Bills have been presented in this House to the effect that we should compensate victims of crime. Is it any worse to lose an arm or have your reputation destroyed by one of these hate dispensers who distributes libellous publications? I suggest to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) that 1969 is not too early to draft legislation with sufficient sophistication that it will protect people who are attacked in this manner and at the same time not take away the civil liberties of honest people.


Mr. Georges Valade (Sainfe-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I had no intention of taking part in this debate, but certain remarks made in the house prompted me to give my opinion on BiU C-3.
To begin with, I must tell the house that I am not a lawyer. I feel that our laws would sometimes be better if we took into account some of the comments made by the public at large.
I would like to say something about certain remarks made by the previous speaker. He discussed an aspect which is not covered by this bill, namely the protection that the law must provide for the individual who is a victim of libel, slander or statements which affect his reputation. This bill is incomplete because it does not mention the kind of libel and slander that can be made against an individual.
In his speech, the previous speaker said, and I quote from memory:

If the character of the person is destroyed, the judgment passed by the accuser is not correct, or something of this sort.
November 17, 1989

'Translation]
I readily accept the hon. member's statement, because it reminds me of the misfortune which beset a whole family. The reputation of a prominent Canadian was affected, and the result was to ruin him as a public figure. Also, the reputation of a family highly regarded in the province of Quebec and throughout Canada was greatly prejudiced. It is with regret that I recall here the unfortunate Munsinger affair. It offers an excellent opportunity to show how little legislation takes into account the individual and the protection it should vouchsafe him against libel and defamation of that kind.
As we all remember, documents of public interest were involved. We all know the name of the citizen whose political and personal reputation was attacked and destroyed, I am afraid, for the rest of his life.
That was one of the most painful things we have experienced in the history of Canadian politics. What is intolerable is the reason for which use was made of this man, with a world-wide reputation in the military field, who had earned the world's most valued decorations during the last war. The man was painfully and cruelly wronged in his reputation. His family suffered greatly and his life, both social and private, was unjustly affected.
In my opinion, this bill should have been the opportunity for the minister and the government-allegedly seeking the just society and the protection of the citizen's basic rights-to provide adequate protection not only to the groups defined in the bill but also to the individual.
Hon. members will recall that when the Munsinger affair broke out, the desired objective was not only to tarnish a man's reputation but also and above all to destroy a political party.
While I refer to that matter, I do so with much restraint. I do not intend to attack anyone, but this incident shows that if the minister had readily wished to respect the basic rights of the individual and to protect him against defamation, he could have provided in Bill C-3 some protection against that kind of abuse.
By the way, I should like also to refer to defamation which is often in the form of cartoons. During his political career the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) as well as other people may have been the victims of cartoonists working for newspapers or magazines
Criminal Code
who very often use their talents to circumvent the law relating to defamation or even the bill which is now before the House.
I have seen in newspapers cartoons directly attacking the reputation of some people. And since the law is made in this way, the authors of such cartoons could not be prosecuted because it could not have been proven that there had been dishonest intent.
The minister should really take note of these remarks that are not made in a legalistic spirit, since I am not a lawyer. But my experience in political life has perhaps taught me a few things, and I think the minister should certainly amend his bill or else make some recommendations to the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, in order that this aspect of the problem of libel and defamation be thoroughly examined.
It is quite easy to kill a political man, an opponent or a personal enemy through the use of cartoons and, in this way, get around the law and avoid the penalties provided in this bill or in any other provision of the Criminal Code which deals with libel and defamation.
I had not intended to speak for any length of time, but I owed it to myself to make these comments. And I think it is unfortunate that the minister has restricted the application of Bill C-3 to some groups, when, in my view, it should be extended to a number of others.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
In my opinion, this bill on hate literature should also apply to political parties.
I remember another example too. During the last election campaign, a member of this government-and I am sorry that he is not sitting here today because I would have liked him to correct me if need be-the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Mar-chand) said in a speech at the Colisee in Quebec City these words that I quote from memory. The substance of his remarks could be summed up thus: The time is past when an English-speaking Prime Minister would come and talk to us in broken French to put forward political arguments.
In my opinion, the effect of such a statement will be to incite a collectivity or a group of individuals to hate. One individual will be hated because others do not share his ideas. Maybe that was the type of example the minister had in mind when he prepared Bill C-3. I hope my remarks will have the result of alleviating the minister's omissions when drawing up his bill.
November 17, 1969

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion Organized groups often have legal and financial means to fight their cases in court. Unfortunately, the isolated individual who must appear in court must pay for the proceedings. This is a somewhat heavy burden for individuals and the law which seeks to establish a just society could protect not only integrated and organized groups but also the individual who might be the victim of injustice as in the cases I mentioned earlier.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.

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

Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, on November 4 I posed a question to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) with regard to the opportunity of holding a meeting with the Canadian National and Canadian Pacific managements to discuss the distribution of box cars in the prairies. The question was as follows:
I have a question for the Minister of Transport. In view of the meeting called by the Minister of Transport with Canadian Pacific and Canadian National management concerning distribution of box cars to grain shipping points in southern Saskatchewan, to which only Liberal Members of Parliament and Senators from Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba were invited, would the minister now arrange a similar meeting for opposition M.P.'s and Senators in order that we may tell railroad management the problems in our constituencies as well?
Since the question was not allowed at the time, I asked that it be put on the late-night show. In an article of October 30, 1969, the Moose Jaw Times Herald reported the following:
Canada's two major railways came under criticism here Wednesday at a private meeting called to discuss the distribution of box cars to grain shipping points in southern Saskatchewan.
The meeting was called by Transport Minister Donald Jamieson ... Besides Mr. Jamieson, Agriculture Minister H. A. Olson and the minister responsible for the Wheat Board, Otto Lang, attended, together with Liberal M.P.'s and senators from Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba.
[Mr. Valade.)
The Canadian National Railway was represented by its president, N. J. McMillan and a vice-president, Eric Stevenson and the C.P.R. by S. Gossage and M. W. Malcolm.
During the two hour discussion, which Mr. Douglas described as a frank exchange of opinions, Mr. Douglas read a five page brief which he had prepared. He outlined the general problem of box car distribution and cited a number of specific cases where there had been very few box cars available at certain shipping points in the present crop year. These cases had been brought to his attention by farmers in his own riding-
I should like to suggest that if it is the responsibility of M.P.s and the rest of Canada to be considered, why was not an open meeting held at that time? I suggest that the Minister of Transport had ample opportunity to refer the specific item to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications, at which there could have been a frank discussion of the whole situation regarding the distribution of box cars. Instead of that, a meeting was held to discuss this problem-a secluded, private, invitational, furtive meeting at which only closed-mind Liberals were present. This is a further indication of the fear of this government to face problems with which we are confronted today. Further, it is contempt of the elected representatives of this nation, and it is outright discrimination by the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) against this democratic institution of the people of Canada.
It has always been my opinion that once the election is over we should unite together in this House, face problems as a group and try to do something about them. In this particular situation all we had was an invitation sent only to Liberal M.P.s from the prairies, plus some Senators, and no invitation extended to anyone else. Surely the Minister of Transport must know better than that. Surely the release issued at the end of this secluded meeting proves that the government is to blame for the disposition of box cars.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)


Albert B. Douglas: On a point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Skoberg) has the floor, and the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Douglas) should know that it is unusual to raise points of order, except in extreme circumstances, at this time during the adjournment proceedings. The hon. member for Moose Jaw has the floor.
November 17, 1969


John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Speaker, I hope I may be allowed the one minute of my time which was used up when the hon. member interrupted me. I was just saying that in my opinion the government has a responsibility to co-ordinate the movement of box cars.
If at any time the top management of the CPR and CNR appear before a committee of this House, or any other meeting in this House, the people we represent are entitled to a fair representation at that meeting. I quote further from the newspaper article to which I referred:
He-
Meaning the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Douglas).
-said the railways pointed out that there were many organizations involved in the problem and that there was often not enough information passed along. They denied that the fault could be laid at the door of the train crews themselves.
This was an inquisition with respect to the train crews who were not able to defend themselves, but the railway management corrected the record when they said that the blame could not be laid at the door of the train crews. It is highly disorganized government when a situation like this is allowed to exist, when the people of Canada are not given adequate representation.
I ask the minister in all sincerity to make sure that in a similar situation in the future, fair representation is given to all of us. Further, I ask him to bring in terms of reference that will allow this House to call the management of the CPR and CNR before the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications, where we can have a thorough and open-minded discussion about the entire situation.


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I want to begin where my hon. friend left off by saying to him that of course he can have full and complete representation at any discussions of this kind that occur. However, I have a slight problem and I would be grateful for his advice regarding it. When I am asked by a member or members of Parliament to interview or to meet with various people in order to help them with their problems, with their constituencies or the areas they represent, I am not quite sure if in all such cases it is necessary for me to make certain that there is all-party representation at such meetings.


David Lewis: Even if the president of the railway is there?
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion


Donald Campbell Jamieson: May I say that in many other cases I have included members of the hon. member's party and have brought together all people that I could get hold of, anyone who would be involved in the matter, to discuss it with them. For instance, I recall that in the matter of the tugboat problem in the city of Vancouver I arranged meetings for representatives of the hon. member's party, and may I say there have been many other cases where at the request of members I have gone into their constituencies. In fact, I see one hon. member present, a member of the Progressive Conservative Party, with whom I met a very large delegation.
All I am saying is that in this particular case I followed what has been my custom ever since I have had these responsibilities, and that has been to do the best I could to answer the request of a specific member. I want to commend the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Douglas) for having had the initiative to ask if such a meeting could be arranged in this case. It was arranged at his instigation.
So far as members of parties opposite are concerned, if the hon. member would like the same kind of consideration, and if indeed he had asked me for it I think the record reveals he would have obtained it. There was nothing in this particular incident that was any different from the half dozen or more I have already mentioned, and in fact from many more which do not come readily to my mind at the moment.
The simple truth of the matter is that the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Douglas) asked for this; I was able to arrange it for him and was glad to do so. I remind the hon. member that if he wants the same kind of discussion on this or any other subject, I shall do my best to do as much for him. Of course, I cannot command. Perhaps I might be able to use more persuasion with the CNR than with the CPR, but certainly I will be happy to help the hon. member.
If my hon. friend feels that is not an honest representation of the facts, I can only ask him to go back to the record and talk to the members of his party. If at any time a request has been made to me, to any official of any government agency or to any private organization, which directly relates to transportation and I have turned him down or tried in any way to evade that request, I will be glad to apologize to him or any other member in this House.
November 17, 1969

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
I repeat this, because it is all I can say: if any request comes from the hon. member or any other hon. member opposite which is of legitimate concern to his constituents, he will get fair treatment from this department.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I apologize for having to interrupt the minister's eloquent remarks, but I must now call on the hon. member for Hillsborough.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The
Speaker is always right.



POST OFFICE-REQUEST FOR REDUCTION OF RATES ON NON-PROFIT PUBLICATIONS

Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, I regret that I have to keep my hon. friend the Postmaster General (Mr. Kierans) up late, as I did on more than one occasion in the previous session. The questions discussed and matters raised were of importance, and for me it was an education to be called the many names that I was called in the previous session by the minister. I was designated as a Cassandra, as Falstaff and as the Merry Monk of Hillsborough. As I heard this and my education broadened, I declared that even members of the opposition should have at their disposal large cadres of speech writers and public relations men that they, too, could find such charming names for other people. I am wrong, perhaps, in not indulging in name calling but I feel that by pointing to the administration of the minister's department I have said enough. I know the minister grows impatient and wishes to express his displeasure at hearing the same problems aired time and again. May I say that the only solution is for him to cure the ills of which we speak.
One of the consistent themes which I and others in this House have stressed has been the danger to the free flow of ideas resulting from severe restrictions on many publications in this country. Indeed, the minister was consistent, too-I give him credit for that- because he shrugged off our warnings and declared that for a few cents more this or that publication could meet the new impositions. But while he was going about reassuring the House and country, important organs of thought and opinion were dying, as we said would be the case and as the publishers told him would be the case. But the minister knew better; he knew more than the publishers, more than the people and more than the opposition. And what happened?
May I read a few excerpts from the press which tell the unhappy tale. The Gazette of

July 9, 1969, carries this headline over an article: "Mail purge killed 2,500 publications". An earlier report indicates that Montreal, that most interesting magazine, has gone out of business because of cost. Another headline of October 21, 1969, reads: "Death of 30 publications blamed on mail rate rise". In the body of the article is found the following:
A Cross-Canada Survey by The Canadian Press shows at least 30 publications of this type ceased publication this year, their deaths attributed to the higher rates.
Another headline carried in the Toronto Telegram of October 2, 1969, reads: "Postal rate jump lethal for some trade magazines". So the story goes; so we see the diminution in the number of these very important organs of thought and opinion, and so the unhappy tale grows more and more unhappy.
Only last week, Mr. Speaker, a concerned and well informed group of Canadians, the Committee for Fair Postal Rates, came to Ottawa. They argued cogently and well. They were well received by many members, but when they presented their case to the Postmaster General they received not encouragement but rejection. The minister became the rejector general of publications, so to speak. In addition to that they were given a little lecture on, of all things, the perils of exaggeration. The minister said, as reported by Donald Newman of the Globe and Mail:
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
"You would do your case much more justice if you didn't exaggerate ... this kind of exaggeration makes us doubt anything you say."
This warning against exaggeration, believe it or not, was delivered on the day following the Postmaster General's Toronto dissertation where he raised those unhelpful and unwarranted problems about the work of the provinces in the field of constitutional reform. That speech will not go down in history as an example of measured appraisal or balanced judgment. The warning came from the man who in the last session used to tell us how well things were working out in his new department, how the new sorting procedures were so happily received by the workers, how well everything was going in terms of administration. We were told at length of all the improved techniques and management, but there was a pause in these rosy declamations after the blistering report of chief adjudicator Martin.
In fact, all is not well in the non-profit publications field. There is great danger that
November 17, 1969

this continuing rigidity of attitude will diminish still further the flow of informed thought and opinion so essential to a true and enlightened democracy. While orders of government still are disseminated freely and easily-and on occasion I understand some organs of the national Liberal party have the same blessing

opinions of private groups are diminished in their effectiveness as they seek to stimulate public opinion and to provide background information.
I think instead of lecturing, the minister would have been well advised to listen. Despite the glamour of other esoteric means of communication-and we hear a lot about those fascinating and delightful objects of exultation-there is still a place for the written word in our society. Old-fashioned mail is still important and Canadians still like to receive it.
A man in Toronto heard so much about the mail delays that he sent a letter to himself with a six cent stamp on it. He got it back in Toronto in ten days. He now has some means of measuring the delays. Opinion magazines and publications-


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


Eric William Kierans: Mr. Speaker, I object to the hyperbole, rhetoric and coarse exaggeration within which the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) shrouds his questions. I wish to give two examples of the kind of statements the hon. member makes. At page 687 of Hansard the hon. member made the statement that when he returned to Parliament this fall he found that about one-quarter of the floor space in the foyer, that is the wash room, had been pre-empted. When he asked about this he was told that it was to be the new domain of the Minister of Communications, so he said the expansion was indeed physical as well as intellectual and jurisdictional. I was in the House at the time. These words would have remained in Hansard had I not risen to my feet and said, "Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the information is false." I was not only shocked by that statement but deeply shocked by his reply. The reply was:
I have been corrected, Mr. Speaker, and I stand corrected. As I stand crowded in the future I will remember that it is not this minister . . . who is responsible.

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
At page 769 of Hansard the hon. member made another statement which is equally false. It reads in part:
-not a free rate, like the National Liberal Federation, but a much better rate than they are now paying?
The hon. member said the Montreal magazine had gone out of existence because of the increase in postal rates. But as I have said before, the decision affecting that magazine had been taken months ear her. He quoted two headlines, one saying that 2,500 publications had gone out of existence and another, over a CP article of a later date, stating that 30 publications had gone out of existence. Which is true? One of them is exaggerated. Are these equivocal statements meant to be misleading and inaccurate? Is this a deliberate attempt to deceive?
The hon. member relies on the group which came to see me. They, too, exaggerated, but they could only bring forward the cases of four periodicals which they said had ceased publication, including La Tere de Chez Nous. But it has not ceased publication, Mr. Speaker, and the mere statement that it had done so caused La Terre de Chez Nous to take advertizing space at great expense to say: All is going well with us, thank you.
The hon. member mentioned a British Columbia trade union publication. All that was necessary in that case was to increase the subscription rate from $1.00 a year to $1.43. Mr. Speaker, we were carrying 770,000 issues of that publication in a year for $1,000. I ask you, is there anyone in this House who would undertake similar work on those terms?
In conclusion, may I say this: It is easy for certain publishers and hon. members to bring pressure against increases in postage rates and lead the public to believe that the Post Office is crushing Canadian publications. It is most difficult to get over to them the fact that it costs money to carry newspapers and periodicals in the mails, and that if they do not pay for it the taxpayers generally must do so.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The minister's time has expired.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY-POSSIBLE NICKEL AND COPPER PRICE INCREASES-ACTION BY GOVERNMENT

Mr.   Gaelan-J. Serre@Nickel Belt: Mr. Speaker, Friday last while the union membership was voting in favour of a new contract providing for a substantial wage increase, I
November 17, 1969

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) what action the government was contemplating to prevent a subsequent increase in the cost of nickel and copper. The Prime Minister told me that he would make sure that the question would be brought to the attention of the minister concerned.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to discuss this matter in the house this evening and to set forth during the few minutes at my disposal the baneful consequences that such a price increase would have on the cost of living not only in the Sudbury area but also throughout the country.
Mr. Speaker, the precedent is well established throughout the country. Indeed, when a company grants a salary increase to its employees, an increase in the prices for consumer products follows almost automatically. I suggest that this vicious circle must be broken at all costs if there is to be an end to inflation.
The problem is getting more and more serious in the Sudbury area. Lately, many groups of organized workers have obtained fairly large increases in salary and I am happy about it for their sake. However, such increases become meaningless as a consequential increase in prices immediately follows. And to make the situation more abnormal still, a large number of unorganized workers do not get equal increases in salary but have to pay the same prices as the others for products and services, and as a result the number poor people increases considerably.
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, following this new contract at the International Nickel Company, in Sudbury, one may expect an imminent increase in nickel and copper prices. Moreover, it is well known that such an increase will automatically bring about a similar increase in consumer prices in the Sudbury area. One fears, and not without cause, that companies, distributors, tradesmen, realtors, contractors, professionals, will take advantage of that rise in the workers' income to increase their prices sharply.
That is a most alarming situation if one takes into account that the cost of living in the Sudbury area is already higher than in the most areas of Ontario. Therefore I insist firstly that the Prices and Incomes Commission investigate the matter and determine immediately whether at present an increase in the price of nickel is warranted, so that the increase does not threaten the economic stability of the country; and secondly, that the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs bring every necessary pressure to bear on companies, distributors, dealers, etc., so that they do not take advantage of the situation by increasing their prices.
Mr. Speaker, it is my opinion that government leaders will have to take a firmer stand and exercise more control if they are to break up the vicious circle of the wage-price spiral and thus bring to an end this frenzied rush towards inflation.
According to recent statements by the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) had the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Basford), we have every reason to believe that the government is more willing than ever before to take whatever steps are necessary and I dare hope that my representations will be followed up.


Mr. Paul Langlois (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am well aware of the interest the hon. member for Nickel Belt takes in the consumers of Canada, and particularly in those of his constituency.
He gives a clear and detailed account of a situation, and he also proves all the consideration he has for his fellow citizens.

We all, of course, deplore unnecessary price increases, and I am sure that the House is well aware of the need for restraint at this time. The comments of the hon. member will be drawn to the attention of the minister and they will receive every attention.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.25 p.m.

Tuesday, November 18, 1969