1970-04-08

PRIVILEGE


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of personal privilege. I rise to express a grievance about a serious misquotation on the part of the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. Mc-Cleave) in the House on the evening of April
6.	His quotation of my evidence before the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs was tom from its context and if read in its context carries a meaning that is quite the reverse of the meaning he saw fit to attribute to it.
The effect of what he said was that I led the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs to believe that none of the breathalyzer provisions in the omnibus criminal law amendment bill would be brought into force unless all were brought into force simultaneously. I did no such thing, Mr. Speaker. In fact, what actually transpired is quite to the contrary, and I propose to deal with this matter in detail before the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs at the first convenient opportunity.


Mr. McCleave:: Mr. Speaker,-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Robert Jardine McCleave: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will be given that opportunity in a moment. I doubt whether it would be in order to debate the minister's question of privilege. It may be that the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants has his own question of privilege. We will come to that in a moment. So far as the minister's point is concerned, it seems to me what we have before us is a disagreement between two hon. members as to what was said or what was not said when evidence was heard before a standing committee of the House of Commons. That, in my estimation at least, does not meet the requirements of a question of privilege. The Minister started his remarks by saying he had a grievance. I suggest that the Minister of Justice put himself out of court at that moment and there is not a prima facie question of privilege.


Mr. Baldwin:: Perhaps he should refer this matter to the Supreme Court of Canada, too.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the discussion might be pursued in other circumstances, but I would not think that the point ought to be discussed further by way of a question of privilege. Having said that, it may be that the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants has his own question of privilege. I will hear him on that.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, I shall be there on Tuesday. The record will be fully quoted at that time and will substantiate what I have said in the House.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, hon. members are aware that the government has given notice of its intention to introduce today two bills dealing with protection of Canada's marine environment and the living resources of the sea. I wish now to table a copy of a letter which Canada's Ambassador to the United Nations has delivered to the Secretary General submitting a new reservation to Canada's acceptance of the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice. This reservation is intended to guard against any possible litigation of certain features of these two bills.
Canada strongly supports the rule of law in international affairs. Canada has made known to other states that it is prepared to participate actively in multilateral efforts to develop agreed rules on the protection of the environment and the conservation of the living resources of the sea.
April 8. 1970

International Court of Justice
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)

Canada is not prepared however to engage in litigation with other states concerning vital issues where the law is either inadequate or non-existent and thus does not provide a firm basis for judicial decision. We have therefore submitted this new reservation to Canada's acceptance of the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court relating to those areas of the law of the sea which are undeveloped or inadequate.

It is well known that there is little or no environmental law on the international plane and that the law now in existence favours the interests of the shipping states and the shipping owners engaged in the large scale carriage of oil and other potential pollutants. There is an urgent need for the development of international law establishing that coastal states are entitled, on the basis of fundamental principle of self-defence, to protect their marine environment and the living resources of the sea adjacent to their coasts.
In spite of this new reservation, Canada's acceptance of the compulsory jurisdiction of the court remains much broader than that of most other members of the United Nations, and it is the hope of the government that it will prove possible to reach agreement with other states on the vital need to develop the law to protect the marine environment and its living resources so as to make it possible for Canada again to broaden its acceptance of the court's jurisdiction.


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, one would need to see the bills to which the Prime Minister referred and would also require very full information before making any kind of definitive comment upon the statement of the Prime Minister. We must recognize that it constitutes a serious step, a step hardly in the right direction, for Canada to reduce the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice. I am not passing judgment at the moment on whether or not this is the correct decision in the circumstances. I do say that the government has made this decision without any consultation with Parliament and without any discussion in Parliament.
It seems to me that the position the Prime Minister has announced today is diametrically opposite to the position he took in the House about a year ago when he indicated he was going to try to resolve all these problems 
through the United Nations and through consultation with the Secretary General. My point is that we seem to have here a complete reversal of position, without any real discussion in Parliament, on a matter that we all regard as very serious. The Prime Minister's statement does not seem to settle in any way the question of sovereignty. Presumably we are talking about control of the environment.
I want to know, Mr. Speaker, why the leader of the government has felt it necessary to take this position with regard to the United Nations and reduce the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice before the bills have been introduced and discussed. Why has he felt it necessary to take this action in an arbitrary manner without, if the government is going to proceed with the proposed legislation, giving an opportunity to the members of this House, the representatives of the people, to express their views on this matter before the adoption by Canada of a position with regard to the jurisdiction of the court?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: If there is any reason why this arbitrary action has been taken by the Prime Minister and the government before the matter has been discussed by Parliament, then certainly the Prime Minister has not given it to us. I say this is another indication of the secretive manner in which this government behaves; it is another indication of the contempt with which the government treats this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, at a time in human history when every nation and all peoples in the world are seeking to establish an international rule of law, it is obviously extremely regrettable that the government of this country, a country which has a position of some importance in the international family, should find it necessary to reduce the extent to which Canada is ready to submit itself to the rule of international law.
I say to the Prime Minister that this matter should at least have been discussed at some length by the appropriate committee of Parliament. The reasons in favour of the need for such a reservation should have been given to us in full, with the officials of the government explaining in much greater detail than the statement now before us does the present legal situation, the present composition of the
April 8, 1970

International Court of Justice, the fears which the government has, and the validity of those fears. If every country in the world, every member of the United Nations, were to reduce the sphere in which it would be internationally bound every time it was faced by a matter of national interest, pretty soon the whole concept of the International Court and, indeed, of the United Nations itself, would be dead and buried. This is the issue which concerns us so very deeply.
I am not persuaded from the information contained in the Prime Minister's statement that the reservation is necessary. Possibly his advisers and he have studied the situation and reached a conclusion which may be valid. But I also say that as members of this Parliament I and all others who sit in this chamber have the right to possess as much information about this matter as the Prime Minister himself possesses in order that we may intelligently understand and evaluate the action taken by the government.
At least the Prime Minister should have had the humility not to do any double-talking in this statement. What nonsense it is to say, "Canada strongly supports the rule of law in international affairs", when in the next breath he says he does not intend to be bound by it. We should stop this hypocrisy in international affairs. There has been enough of it in the United Nations and elsewhere. I do not think we serve the cause of peace and international law and order by indulging in this kind of double-talking hypocrisy, and I resent it.


Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that we did not receive the French text of the statement just made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau).
Still, I believe that the government is well advised in being concerned about such an important question as zoning and fishing rights. In my opinion, it is imperative that our government take time to discuss the matter very seriously with bordering countries so that it becomes clear what position Canada is to adopt in future concerning our vested interests in our territorial waters.
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)



PRESENCE IN SPEAKER'S GALLERY OF PRESIDENT OF BRITISH BOARD OF TRADE

Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, may I have your
Labour Conditions
indulgence to call to the attention of hon. members the presence in the gallery of a most distinguished member of the British cabinet, the Right Honourable Roy Mason, M.P., President of the British Board of Trade.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingale):: Mr. Speaker, I seek unanimous consent- hopefully, the consent of the President of the Privy Council-to move a reference under Standing Order 43. My reasons are very simple and dramatically alarming. They concern the almost unprecedented unemployment situation in Canada. I am referring to the 6.5 per cent unemployment rate in Canada generally, the 9 per cent rate in Quebec, the 13 per cent rate in the Atlantic provinces, and the reported 22 per cent in Canada's newest province. This is definitely an unprecedented rate of unemployment.
My reason for seeking unanimous consent to move this motion is simply that the government's fiscal and monetary policies are continuing to have a tremendously detrimental effect on the Canadian economy. The programs of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion are not having any effect because they are not getting off the ground and offsetting the impact made by unemployment.
Since this problem is one that affects all Canadians, either because they are unemployed or because they face the danger of becoming unemployed, I should like to move, seconded by the hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski), the following motion:
That the chronic unemployment situation in Canada, which is especially serious in the disadvantaged areas of Canada, be referred to the Standing Committee on Manpower and Immigration.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the motion proposed by the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate under the terms of Standing Order 43. This motion requires the unanimous consent of the House to be proceeded with. Is there unanimity?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not, so the motion
cannot be put at this time.
April 8, 1970
5626	COMMONS DEBATES
Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Bill


Mr. Bell:: They are waiting till its gets to 20 per cent.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, is there any practice under our parliamentary rules whereby the names of those who oppose such a motion are actually recorded in Hansard?


Gerald William Baldwin: That would make Hansard hate literature.



ARCTIC WATERS POLLUTION PREVENTION BILL


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-202, to prevent pollution of areas of the Arctic waters adjacent to the mainland and islands of the Canadian Arctic.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Survey of the Characteristics of the PostSecondary Student Population in Canada during the Academic Year 1968-69
Studies on Aspects of the Carter Commission Report on Taxation
Investigation of the Effects of Canada's present Income Tax System, of the tax structure proposed by the Royal Commission on Taxation, and of various alternatives including the proposals put forward in the White Paper


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (for fhe Secretary of Stale for External Affairs) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-203, to amend the Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

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

Mr. Comeau: 1.	In 1968-69 and 1969-70, what were the estimated sums spent on research in the Department of Finance and what was the purpose of each research project?
2.	How much money was actually expended according to Dominion Bureau of Statistics figures?


Mr. Yves Forest (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: I am informed by the Department of Finance and the Dominion Bureau of Statistics as follows: 1.
1968-69 $	1969-70 $
45,000	30,000
4,500	
(Note 1)	(Note 1)
Note 1-This research study has been carried out in the Department. It is not possible to relate a cost figure as Departmental personnel work on various projects at the one time.
2. The Dominion Bureau of Statistics does not have actual expenditures on research for 1968-69 and 1969-70. A survey requesting information on actual expenditures for 1968-69 and estimates for 1969-70 on research in the natural and engineering sciences is in process.


BEAUCE CONSTITUENCY-CMHC LOAN FOR CONSTRUCTION OF HOME FOR AGED
Mr. Rodrigue: Did Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation approve a loan for the construction of a home for the aged at VallSe Jonction, Constituency of Beauce and, if so, what is the amount of the loan?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister without Portfolio):: In 1969 Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation approved one loan, un-
April 8, 1970

der Section 16 of the National Housing Act, for $380,000 in Vallee Jonction, Quebec. This project will accommodate 50 elderly persons in four self-contained units and 44 hostel beds.


COST OF BILINGUAL SIGNS
Mr. Skoreyko: In the period January 1, 1969 to January 1, 1970, what was the total cost of replacing unilingual signs with bilingual signs in (a) the National Parks in Canada (b) federal government buildings in Canada (c) Banff National Park (d) Jasper National Park?


Yves Forest: I am informed by the Departments of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Public Works and Transport as follows: (a) $519,800. (b) Total cost by Department of Public Works, $6,646.38; total cost by Department of Transport, $1,345. (c) $104,000 (included in (a) above), (d) $65,000 (included in (a) above).


RAILWAY PASSENGER RATE PER MILE
Mr. Comeau: How does the railway passenger rate per mile between Yarmouth and Halifax compare with the rate between Montreal and Toronto?


Mr. Gerard Loiselle (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: The Minister of Transport advises as follows: In so far as the Canadian Transport Commission is concerned: Based on information provided by the Canadian Pacific Railway, the railway passenger rate per mile between Yarmouth and Halifax is 4.98 cents. Based on information provided by the Canadian National Railways, the railway passenger rate per mile between Montreal and Toronto is as follows: Red fare days, 2.96 cents; White fare days, 3.55 cents; Blue fare days, 3.85 cents.


LORD'S DAY ACT-TRUCKING OPERATIONS
Mr. Caouelte: 1.	How many road transport companies have been authorized under Paragraph (x) of section 11 of the Lord's Day Act, R.S.C., Chapter 171, as amended by section 94 of the National Transportation Act, 14-15-16 Elizabeth n, Chapter 69, to provide unlimited and uninterrupted transportation service for merchandise on the Lord's Day?
2.	What are the names of the companies so authorized by virtue of the above amendment?
3.	How many transport companies are presently requesting a similar privilege?
4.	Which companies are presently making such a request?
5.	What reasons are cited by these companies requesting such permission?
Questions
6.	Have any persons or groups at present shown
opposition to or approval of such requests and, if so (a) what are the names and addresses of these persons or groups (b) what reasons were offered for approval or opposition?	-
7.	Does the federal government plan to interpose or reveal its opposition to or approval of such requests to the Canadian Transport Commission?
[Translation\


Gérard Loiselle: The Minister of Transport advises as follows: Insofar as the Canadian Transport Commission is concerned: 1. One.
2.	Day and Ross Limited.
3.	Three.
4.	Smith Transport Limited, Montreal, Quebec. H. Smith Transport Ltee, Dorval, Quebec. Normans Transfer Limited, Montreal Quebec.
5.	The reasons cited by the companies are contained in the applications submitted to the Canadian Transport Commission, which applications are open to public inspection.
6.	Yes. (a) Those persons or groups who have to date filed interventions are: (1) Mr. David M. Duncan, Q.C., Director of Legal Services, Ontario Department of Transport, Ferguson Block, Queen's Park, Toronto 5, Ontario. (2) Mrs. Lida Matusiah, 2103 Dunelm Street, Ottawa 8, Ontario. (3) Rev. W. R. Underhay, 27 Hawthorne Avenue, Charlottetown, P.E.I. (4) Miss G. Goodison, 14 Lawrence Ave. East, Toronto 319, Ontario. (5) Mrs. Bruce Bailey, 11 Aberdeen Street, Galt, Ontario. (6) Mr. Donald E. McLean, 12 Longbow Road, London, Ontario. (7) Mr. Latham C. Bums, 330 Spadina Road, Apt. 1805, Toronto 178, Ontario, (b) The reasons offered for approval or opposition (where stated) are contained in the interventions, which are open to public inspection.
7.	The question of such requests is one coming under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Canadian Transport Commission.


FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR ANTI-POLLUTION PROGRAMS
Mr. Soulham: In light of President Nixon's announcement that the USA will contribute 10 billion dollars toward State and Federal Anti-Pollution Programs, will the Canadian Government give consideration to revising its present policy by making available a substantial sum of funds to assist governments at all levels in Canada in their fight against pollution of land, air and water?

April 8, 1970
Questions


Mr. J. E. Walker (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: During the current session the government has announced a number of measures for combating the problems of environmental pollution including the provision of additional funds to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to finance municipal sewage plants, and special allowances under the Income Tax Act in respect of structures and equipment primarily for the purpose of preventing or reducing air and water pollution. Other measures are under consideration. In addition, the problems of pollution were discussed at the Federal-Provincial Conference held in Ottawa on February 16th and 17th, 1970 and discussions between governments on this subject are continuing.


NATIONAL HEALTH AND WELFARE-APPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH GRANTS
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	How many applications for grants to finance research projects did the Department of National Health and Welfare receive in each of the past three years?
2.	What was the total dollar value of the projects requested from the Department of National Health and Welfare?
3.	How many of the applications made to the Department of National Health and Welfare were approved in full?
4.	How many of the applications were approved in part only?
5.	How many applications for research grants were turned down in each of the last three years?
6.	What were the reasons for the refusals?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Part	Fiscal Year	Health Grants	Welfare Grants	Fitness and Amateur Sport Grants1.	1967-68	362	59	621968-69	342	68	411969-70	294	55	322.	1967-68	$5,694,057	$649,088	$763,1031968-69	$6,546,739	$949,513	$704,0071969-70	$5,638,808	$1,037,507	$569,7073.	1967-68	213	43	91968-69	196	45	81969-70	175	24	94.	1967-68	69	3	101968-69	75	1	151969-70	48	12	135.	1967-68	80	13	431968-69	71	22	181969-70	71	19	106.	The reasons for refusals were as follows for the different types of grants:
Health Grants: Inadequacy of design. Lack of originality of research activity. Lack of relevance to the scope of the grants program. Lack of funds.
Welfare Grants: Inadequacy of research design and/or methodology. Lack of relevance to the scope and/or frame of reference of the grants program. Lack of funds. Withdrawal of application.
Fitness and Amateur Sport Grants: Lack of scientific priority. Inadequacy of design and methodology.


RICHMOND CONSTITUENCY-CROWN OWNED LAND
Mr. Beaudoin: Does the Crown own land in the constituency of Richmond and, if so (a) how many parcels, what is the acreage and what is the location (b) what is the number, acreage and location of such lands presently leased for forestry operations (c) what is the number, acreage, use and location of such lands leased for purposes other than forestry operations?


Yves Forest: I am informed by the Department of Public Works and the Department of Transport as follows: (a) Yes, 12 parcels of land at the following
April 8, 1970



locations: Bramptonville, .2 acres; Town of Windsor, .3 acres; Town of Richmond, .4 acres; Town of Asbestos, .4 acres; Village of South Durham, .1 acres; St. Adolphe de Duds-well, (also known as Village of Marbleton), .3 acres; Municipality of Walton, .1 acres; Municipality of Weedon, .1 acres; Village of Garthby Station, .1 acres; Township of Ham, .7 acres; Village of Disraeli, .3 acres; Township of Stoke, 4.6 acres, (b) Nil. (c) Nil.


TESTING OF TELEVISION SETS FOR RADIATION
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 1,370 - Mr. MacDonald (Egmont):
1.	In each year 1965 to 1969, what number of television sets were tested for harmful radiation?
2.	Which were the sets that had acceptable radiation levels from all sides of the television set at a distance of one foot?
3.	(a) What is considered an acceptable level of radiation (b) how is it determined (c) what sets in 1966, 1967, 1968 and 1969 continued to emit harmful radiation?
4.	What steps are being taken by the government to prohibit the production of television sets which emit harmful radiation levels?
John Carr Munro: 1. During the last three years the Radiation Protection Division of the Department of National Health and Welfare has tested new colour television sets as well as sets in private homes. The number of sets tested by year of make are as follows: 1965, 33; 1966, 89; 1967, 12; 1968, 160; and 1969, 144.
2.	The tests were designed to measure radiation dose ratios close to all surfaces of the sets, and no systematic measurements were made at a distance of one foot.
3.	(a) Recommendations by the International Commission on Radiological Protection
2. Name	Profession
Dr. N. E. Monast	Physician
Dr. J. Beaudry	Dentist
Mr. J. G. J. Benoit Mr. J. J. R. Rousseau Mr. J. R. E. Bachand Mr. J. H. G. Bouchard	Teacher Teacher Teacher Teacher
Rev. R. Dufort Rev. J. D. McCord	Chaplain Chaplain
Questions
required that the dose rate near the surface (5 cm. of any set not be greater than 0.5 mR/hr. under normal operating conditions, (b) The radiation dose rates were determined both by electronic equipment and by a photographic method standardized by the Radiation Protection Division. For the majority of the tests the latter method was used, (c) In a survey of domestic television sets carried out last year it was found that about 20% of sets purchased in 1966 or earlier emitted radiation which, in some degree, exceeded the Standard of 0.5 milliroentgen/hour recommended by the International Commission on Radiological Protection. The proportion fell to 14 per cent in 1967, 8 per cent in 1968 and 4 per cent in 1969. Examples of such sets were found among all popular makes.
4. The Division has a continuing program of checking new models as they are produced. The Department is drafting detailed technical safety specifications and will shortly introduce them in the form of regulations which will govern the manufacture, sale and import of all television sets in Canada.


COWANSVILLE PENITENTIARY-SALARIES OF PROFESSIONALS
Mr. Rondeau: 1.	What was the total of salaries paid to all categories of professionals employed by the Penitentiary in Cowansville during the year 1969?
2.	Who were these professionals and what were the required qualifications for each job?
3.	What is the salary of each of these professionals and their official salary ranges?


Hon. G. J. Mcllraiih (Solicitor General):: 1. $62,024.
Required Qualifications
Must be in possession of an M.D. enabling him to be licensed by the Provincial License Authority (or equivalent qualifications).
Must be a full qualified Dentist enabling him to be licensed by the Provincial Licensing Authority.
Minimum qualifications: Jr. Matric, plus one year of study leading to the granting of a recognized Teaching Certificate.
Must be fully ordained in an established religious faith and approved by the Church Head of the church concerned.

April 8, 1970
3.
Name
Questions
Present Salary
Dr. N. E. Monast Dr. J. Beaudry Mr. J. G. J. Benoit Mr. J. J. R. Rousseau Mr. J. R. E. Bachand Mr. J. H. G. Bouchard Rev. R. Dufort Rev. J. D. McCord
$ 5,000 (Contract) $ 3,328 (Contract) $ 8,193 $10,583 $ 9,787 $ 8,193 $11,658 $ 5,282
Salary Range
$8,320 (Part-time rate)
$8,320 (Part-time rate) $6,998-$11,380 $6,998-$11,380 $6,998-$11,380 $6,998-$11,380 $9,912-$11,658 $5,282 (Part-time rate)


ANCIENNE-LORETTE AIRPORT-AIRCRAFT OVERSHOOTING LANDING STRIP
Mr. Godin: Since 1965, have any aircraft overshot the landing strip at Ancienne-Lorette airport and, if so (a) what is the runway number (b) what type of aircraft were involved and (c) in each case, what was the distance covered beyond the runway?


Gérard Loiselle: Yes. (a) 06, (b)
Vickers Viscount and Fairchild F27, (c) 300 feet, 500 feet, 800 feet, 200 feet.


CURBING AIRCRAFT NOISE AND SONIC BOOMS
Mr. Mather: Is consideration being given to curbing aircraft noise and sonic boom over populated areas?


Yves Forest: I am informed by the Department of Transport and the National Research Council of Canada as follows: Yes. At a recent meeting of the International Civil Aviation Organization, of which Canada is a member, agreement was reached on a noise certification plan which will ensure that all new turbojet aircraft undergoing initial airworthiness certification after January 1, 1969 do not exceed predetermined levels of noise when taking-off or landing at an airport. It is expected that the first new types of aircraft subject to the noise certification plan should be in service by 1974. In the interim every effort is made to control the noise of aircraft in the vicinity of airports through the implementation of noise abatement procedures and curfews where required.
With regard to the operation of supersonic civil aircraft over Canada: these aircraft will not be allowed to fly at supersonic speeds until it has been established that this will not be detrimental to the people of Canada.
*Improved designs for stator blades in turbomachinery are being tested by the National Research Council of Canada.
[Mr. Mcllraith.l


CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION PRE-RETIREMENT PROGRAM
Mr. Muir (Cape Breion-: The Sydneys):
1.	Has the Minister of Labour received a letter from Mr. Daniel Bonnar, 100 Fraser Avenue, Sydney Mines, Nova Scotia, dated February 7, 1970, protesting in general the pre-retirement program of the Cape Breton Development Corporation and also the fact that men who were willing to continue work were forced to go on a pre-retirement allowance at sixty years of age?
2.	What was the nature of the reply that was provided Mr. Bonnar?


Mr. Jim McNulty (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: 1. Yes.
2. The Minister of Labour replied on February 13, 1970 and explained the nature of the plan which is similar to some 170 individual plans which have been approved by the Unemployment Insurance Commission. The Minister has also explained the functioning of the plan as such.


BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL TAX DEDUCTIONS
Mr. Mather: In 1968 and 1969, what was the approximate total of business and professional tax deductions relative to deducting cost of doing work from income?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Minister of Naifional Revenue):: Available figures indicate only the total expenses deducted from gross business and professional income in determining net income from these sources for tax purposes. This figure for 1968 taxation year was $12,385 million. Not available for 1969.


METHOD OF DECREASING JET PLANE NOISE
Mr. Mather: What efforts are being made by the National Research Council to develop an efficient method of decreasing jet plane noise?
April 8, 1970


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: See reply to Question No. 1,442 answered this day.


WAR VETERANS FUNERAL COST ASSISTANCE
Mr. Mather: Is consideration being given to increasing the federal funds available for funeral costs to war veterans and their next-of-kin dependants?


Hon. Jean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Effective April 1, 1970, the amount payable by the Department and the Canadian Pension Commission under the Veterans Burial Regulations for or towards the funeral expenses of a deceased entitled veteran was increased by 30 per cent from $277 to $360. The amount payable to a funeral director under the Last Post Fund Regulations was also increased by 30 per cent from $240 to $315 effective the same date. The Department has no authority for payment of the funeral expenses of a deceased dependant or next-of-kin of a veteran.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Harding: 1.	Did the Acting Minister, responsible for the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, the Minister without Portfolio from Saskatoon-Hum-boldt, state in releasing backing material and information on the proposed Canada Water Act that incentives for the construction of municipal sewage plants already exist under the National Housing Act and the hope is that towns and cities will continue to take advantage of them?
2.	For the period January 1, 1969 to December 19, 1969 (a) how many applications were received by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for financial assistance for the construction of municipal sewage plants under the National Housing Act (b) what applications were approved and what was the expenditure for each approved application (c) what applications were rejected and what was the planned expenditure for each rejected application?
3.	What reasons were given by CMHC officials for each application rejected?
Return, tabled.


PARKING PERMITS, PARLIAMENT HILL
Mr. Rondeau: 1.	How many persons have parking permits on Parliament Hill, other than Members of Parliament?
2.	What are their names and addresses?
Orders for Returns
3.	How long have such persons been in the employ of the Public Service?
4.	What criteria does the government use as a basis for granting such permits?
Return tabled.


OTTAWA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT-NEWSPAPER, GIFT STAND AND DUTY FREE SHOP
Mr. Valade: 1.	To whom did the Minister of Transport grant concessions for the newspaper and gift stand, and the duty free shop at the Ottawa International Airport?
2.	Were these concessions granted to the lowest tenderers?
3.	(a) How many tenderers were there for each concession (b) who were they (c) what were the conditions offered by each?
4.	Were the specifications and other documents required for the tenderers available from the Regional Manager of the Department of Transport in Toronto and. if not, for what reason?
5.	Could interested parties obtain these documents in Montreal or Ottawa and, if not, for what reason?
Return tabled.


Mr. Speaker:: Notices of motions for the production of papers.


Mr. Rose:: Mr. Speaker, you turned the other way and perhaps you did not see me.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member is right on both counts.


Mark Willson Rose: I should like to ask when the government plans to answer my question No. 81 which has been on the Order Paper since October 23.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I will make inquiries, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Broadbent:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make the same inquiry in respect of questions Nos. 162 to 172 inclusive which have been on the Order Paper for almost six months.


Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, even though the tracing of the ultimate ownership of about 800 companies has been a time-consuming task, I am informed that the answer should be forthcoming in about a week.


Mr. Orlikow:: Mr. Speaker, my question No. 770 has been on the Order Paper almost four months. There are not 800 Crown corporations or agencies and it seems to me that it

April 8, 1970
Motions for Papers
should not be that difficult to provide an answer. I hope it will not be much longer before it is supplied.


Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, I will inquire of the appropriate department.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, notice of motion for the production of papers No. 390 is acceptable to the government.

SCIENTIFIC DATA, CYCLAMATE BAN Motion No. 390-Mrs. Maclnnis:
That an Order of this House do issue for a copy of the relevant scientific data on which the decision to ban cyclamates was based.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, notices of motions Nos. 285 and 365 are acceptable to the government subject to the usual reservations concerning confidential documents and to the authorization of the government authorities concerned.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservations cr conditions expressed by the Parliamentary Secretary, is it the pleasure of the House that Notices of Motions Nos. 285 and 365 be deemed to have been adopted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ABANDONMENT OF CANADIAN FORCES BASE, CLINTON, ONT.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 285-Mr. McKinley:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all reports, studies, surveys, submissions, petitions, documents and other papers prepared for or submitted to the Government of Canada in respect of the abandonment of the Canadian Forces base at Clinton, Ontario, and in particular, but without limiting the generality of the foregoing, papers on or relating to comparisons of the economic and financial impact of abandonment upon the regional areas respectively surrounding Clinton Base and other Canadian Forces Bases in Ontario.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 365-Mr. Howard (Skeena):
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid 
before this House a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the government or any agency or department thereof and any other person, government (including the Stony Creek Indian people in British Columbia) since January 1, 1964 relating to the sale of timber of the said Indian people.
Motion agreed to.
Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, will you be so kind as to call notices of motion No. 389?
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the other notices of motions be allowed to stand.



REPORT ON PROPERTY APPRAISALS, RIDING MOUNTAIN PARK

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 389-Mr. Slewarl (Marquette):
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the appraisers' complete report by the firm Rohne-Trumpour Realties Service Limited who were selected by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to do the commercial appraisals of property in Riding Mountain National Park.
Mr. Russell C. Honey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, the appraisal report is considered a privileged document, as it contains information on the yearly land rental to be paid by the leaseholders in Riding Mountain National Park. The land rental figures form part of the lease agreement which constitutes a confidential landlord-tenant relationship. The government does not table such documents, which would represent a breach of this confidence, without the express written consent of the lessee. Under the circumstances I would therefore ask that the hon. member withdraw his motion.


Mr. Stewart (Marquette):: Transfer for dedebate.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion is transferred for debate.
[DOT] (2:30 p.m.)



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport who was here a moment ago.
April 8, 1970


Thomas Miller Bell: He is behind the curtain smoking with the Minister of Health.


An hon. Member:: Tally-ho!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, my question relates to the voyage of the Manhattan. Can the minister tell the House what instructions have been given to Captain Fournier of the icebreaker St. Laurent authorizing the captain of the icebreaker to take command of the expedition when in his opinion there is risk of an accident?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, the details were included in the letters I tabled yesterday between the Department of Transport and the Humble Oil Company. I am speaking from memory now because I do not have the letters in front of me. They are to the effect that the captain of the icebreaker, Captain Fournier, would have the authority-I am trying to recall the precise words-to terminate or advise the captain of the Manhattan that he should not proceed farther should he feel that the circumstances are too precarious to warrant any further penetration of the ice. But I would refer the Leader of the Opposition to the letter because it might answer the question more specifically.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, do these instructions give the captain of the icebreaker the authority to terminate the whole expedition, with compliance by the Manhattan, or do they simply give authority to the captain of the St. Laurent to decide when he should take the icebreaker out of the situation?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, again I refer to the letter which indicates the conditions we laid down. The letter from the Humble Oil Company indicates their willingness to abide by these conditions. If both are read together I think they would indicate that the captain of the Manhattan, if so advised by the captain of the Canadian icebreaker, would be required to change direction in line with the recommendations of the captain of the Canadian vessel.


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Minister of Transport. What contingency plans have been made to deal with pollution should the Manhattan be crushed in the ice, control not having been taken over by the St. Laurent?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I will be pleased to provide the hon. member and the House with a copy of some of the details of the contingency plan. Briefly, I believe there are three or four frogmen on board the Canadian vessel who have all the necessary apparatus. There are booms on board for the containment of any oil spilled and various absorbent substances which in Chedabucto Bay have proven to be the most effective in terms of sopping up the oil-I suppose "sopping" is the proper term. There are other details and I will make them available to the hon. member.


Gerald William Baldwin: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, for the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that this voyage is now taking place at a time when this legislation is being brought forward, accompanied by the Prime Minister's interesting statement, will the Prime Minister discuss with the President of the Privy Council the prospects of bringing forward immediately in the House a debate and discussion on second reading of these bills so that consideration may take place at the appropriate time?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will gladly discuss that with the House Leader. I hope members of the opposition will not judge that the Manhattan has been in contempt of Parliament.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the Prime Minister is in a position today to give us some information regarding the decision of the government of the United States to transfer large quantities of lethal gas from Okinawa to Bangor, Washington, via the Strait of Juan de Fuca. Can the Prime Minister tell the House whether or not the Canadian government was notified of this action and whether or not it was assured of any precautionary measures being taken? Can the Prime Minister also tell us the approximate date when this transfer will take place?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Since the question was raised I have inquired of External Affairs. Although I would prefer that the minister, when he returns from Europe, give a more detailed answer, I can assure the hon. mem-
April 8. 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry ber and the House that there have been discussions between officials between the two governments on the nature and kind of preventive measures which have been taken by the United States. They appear to be extremely elaborate.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he is prepared to tell the House what these precautionary measures are? Some United States scientists have indicated it is possible to detoxicize the nerve gas. Is this being done, or are the precautionary measures merely careful handling of the product?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I believe some of these measures are of a confidential nature. At any rate, at this stage I am not prepared to enter into the details.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether representations were made to the United States government by the government of Canada in respect of this matter, when they were made, what was the nature of the representations and what was the nature of the reply?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I cannot answer in detail. Obviously there have been some exchanges since there has been an exchange of information between the two governments. We have asked what precautions are being taken. We have been told what those precautions are and we have been engaged in an assessment of their sufficiency.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the Prime Minister not give more details than he has already supplied? Will he state whether or not consent was given by the Canadian government to the shipment of 8,000 to 10,000 tons of this dangerous material? If so, on what basis was the consent given?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I know of no basis on which Canadian consent is required by the United States for them to operate in their own waters.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, that answer of course is as facetious as usual. The effect that would be felt by the people of British Columbia in the event anything should happen is too dangerous to be played with by such words on the part of the Prime Minister.


FINANCE
Mr. Henry Latulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, my question was for the Minister of Finance, but as he is absent I will put it to the Prime Minister.
Can he tell the House whether Canadian farmers will be eligible for loans from our financial institutions for the purchase of Russian farm machinery which is being sold at prices 35 or 40 per cent lower than those of Canadian farm implements, and whether the Canadian farmers will be informed of this possibility?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I take this most interesting question as notice on behalf of my colleague.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Donald Craig Stewart: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. The minister is on the roster today but as he is not here I shall direct the question to his Parliamentary Secretary. In view of the fact that No. 4 flying training program, the last training operation at Rivers air base, is being transferred to Portage as of July 1, what new programs will be announced for Rivers air base?


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to me this is a question which normally should be answered by way of a general statement. If the hon. member considers there is urgency about the matter, it might very well be considered at the time of adjournment.


Donald Craig Stewart: Mr. Speaker, the people of western Manitoba think it is very urgent.


Mr. Speaker:: Then if it is urgent I would co-operate with the hon. member to make sure it is given priority for debate at the time of adjournment.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of
April 8, 1970

Justice. In view of the very unfortunate remarks made by Mr. Justice Haines before the Medical Association which indicated that in the mind of the learned judge there should be no right on the part of an accused to withhold evidence at a criminal trial, would the minister seize the first available opportunity to indicate that this is not the view of the government and that the government's position is that the rights of an accused person will be maintained?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Justice Haines was not speaking from the bench but was making a speech on a private occasion. I have already made a comment to the effect that these certainly are not the views of the Attorney General of Canada.


Gerald William Baldwin: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister indicate to the judge that these views are probably contrary to those of the Prime Minister who does not feel that members of the opposition should be heard?


George James McIlraith: They are not the present Prime Minister's views but those of a former Prime Minister.



POST OFFICE


David Lewis: I should like to direct a question to the President of the Treasury Board. Would he be prepared to undertake to make a statement to the House on motions tomorrow outlining the various offers made by the government to the truck drivers involved in the postal dispute in Montreal and outlining also the additional requests or demands which they have made of him at the various meetings they have held with him?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I would think that the hon. gentleman, who has had considerable experience in labour negotiations, would appreciate that until such time as these have been concluded it would not be helpful to try to debate in the House the merits of the course being followed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: What is all that clatter over there all about?


David Lewis: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the great
Inquiries of the Ministry experience of the President of the Treasury Board in the mismanagement of labour relations in this country-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the hon. member might ask the question.


David Lewis: That was a necessary preface, Mr. Speaker.


George James McIlraith: Quite improper.


David Lewis: May I ask the minister whether in his view it is more important for him to issue press releases giving the details of these matters than to make a statement to this House?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member will recognize, I am sure, that the question in those terms is not acceptable.


David Lewis: May I reword it, Mr. Speaker, and ask the President of the Treasury Board whether he did issue a press release outlining the offers made by the Treasury Board in the negotiations with the men and their union and, if so, whether he would be prepared to elaborate on the points in that press release for the further information of members of this House?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: It is correct that a press release was issued in agreement with the union. The time of issue was agreed upon with them. As I mentioned earlier, in light of my considerable administrative malpractice the hon. member would not regard as very helpful a further elaboration of what is going on.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: I agree with the minister and so do the truck drivers in Montreal. May I ask him, however, a further supplementary question. In view of the importance of some of the negotiations and the inquiry before Mr. Gol-denberg, would the minister undertake to table in the House all the documents which were presented to Mr. Goldenberg during the course of his inquiry, including the contracts which have now been cancelled and memoranda presented to the commissioner regarding the situation in Montreal?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I would be glad to consult Mr. Goldenberg regarding the tabling of all the documents that he has received. I suspect, without knowing this, that some of them may be of a confidential nature, but I will be glad to inquire.

April 8, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, which I wish to direct to the President of the Treasury Board. In view of the frequent emphasis the Prime Minister places on the long periods of planning that the government puts behind all the moves it makes, I should like to ask the President of the Treasury Board whether everything is going according to plan in connection with this matter?


Gerald William Baldwin: The word is "plot".


David Orlikow: have a supplementary question for the President of the Treasury Board. Are discussions still going on with the union representatives of the employees in Montreal or has the government now made its final offer?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: As I mentioned a moment ago, I do not think the details of the negotiations could usefully be discussed here, but let me say that the door is still open for further conversations.


An hon. Member:: Further conversations?


John Edward Broadbent: I have a further supplementary question for the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister giving any consideration to requesting that the Minister of Labour return as soon as possible from his vacation to deal with this very serious labour problem?



CORPORATE AFFAIRS


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, because of the fact that it has been impossible to secure information from the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs in connection with an application made by John Bullock who has recently been trying to save Canadians from some of the shortcomings of the white paper on tax reform-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Be serious.


John George Diefenbaker: Apparently he has been even more successful than I thought he was, judging from the groans I hear. As I am informed that he and his associates applied for letters patent on January 19, almost three months ago, and the matter is still under 
consideration, will the minister say whether the unnecessary and unexplainable delay is due to the fact that Mr. Bullock is connected with the application?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: As minister I only concern myself with important things, and I am not aware of this application to begin with.


John George Diefenbaker: Better ask the Minister of Finance whether he knows about it.



NATIONAL SECURITY


Mr. S. Perry Ryan (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the right hon. Prime Minister. Will he make a statement to the House as soon as possible on the method of security screening of political appointees to high federal government positions, and particularly with respect to the recent appointment of Mr. Jean-Louis Gagnon?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Muir (Cape Brelon-The Sydneys):: Rise to your feet, leader.


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the Prime Minister advise the House whether the government has decided what portions of the report of the Royal Commission on Security are to be implemented?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I made a very lengthy statement in the House on those portions of the royal commission report which were being implemented; at that time I said that some aspects of it were still under consideration, and they still are.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I have a supplementary question for the Minister Without Portfolio responsible for Information Canada. In view of the appointment of the director of Information for the Minister without Portfolio before this appointment was made any security clearance was done, on the basis of the commission report, by one of the three following agencies, namely, the security panel, the Privy Council office, or the director of security and intelligence of the RCMP?


Hon. Robert Slanbury (Minister without Portfolio):: I think the hon. member knows that appointments of deputy ministers are the prerogative of the Prime Minister.
April 8, 1970


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: You don't like him either, eh? That explains it.


John George Diefenbaker: The one-man government.


Mr. Stanbury:: I only hope, Mr. Speaker, that questions of this kind do not sink this country into a new McCarthy era.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I can understand why the minister has no portfolio in view of that type of remark. In view of the answer given by the Minister without Portfolio ,my question is now directed to the Prime Minister. Before the appointment of the director of Information Canada was there any type of clearance by any of the three agencies mentioned in the commission report, namely, the security panel, the Privy Council office, or the director of security and intelligence of the RCMP?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: In answer to this question and with reference to the reaction which was created by the statement of the Minister without Portfolio, I would like to remind the House that the practice of giving the responsibility for the appointment of deputy ministers or people at that level to the Prime Minister was begun by Sir John A. Macdonald and is recorded as such in a minute of the council many, many years ago. To answer the second part of the question, it is, of course, my responsibility to ensure, when anyone at this level is being appointed by me, that the proper security assurances have been given.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Were such assurances given?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have a point of order too-I have the floor. The hon. member seeks the floor on a point of order.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Prime Minister's answer. This is a serious matter and no one is suggesting otherwise, but because it is a serious matter members of the opposition or members of the government are entitled to ask questions on such impor-
Inquiries of the Ministry tant matters, especially when they have not come before Parliament by any vehicle whatsoever. It is because of the latter part of the Prime Minister's answer stating what the policy has been that I asked the supplementary to my supplementary: were such assurances given and accepted by the Prime Minister?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the House that I have such assurances. Of course if members of the opposition have any vital or secret information on this subject-from other sources than Ron Gostick-or others-I would suggest it is their duty to convey such information to the Solicitor General.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker, and it is only because of the importance of the matter. In view of the insinuation of the Prime Minister, would he exercise the influence and power of his office to have this whole agency, Information Canada, with the director of Information Canada, referred to the appropriate committee of the House and because there is no committee-


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Un-American
activities.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: -on supply and services at the moment, would the Prime Minister-if the President of the Privy Council wants to get up out of his seat and speak in the House I would be glad to hear him-would the Prime Minister use his good offices, because we should clarify this matter now rather than have it amplified-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question period is only 40 minutes and we have to give an opportunity to all hon. members. Perhaps the hon. member might ask the question so that we can get on.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I appreciate your stricture, Mr. Speaker. Did the President of the Privy Council suggest this was an old McCarthy
ploy?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I said you sound like Joe McCarthy's boy.


Mr. Ricard:: You sound like an empty barrel.


Mr. Speaker:: We will go on to another question. The hon. member has asked a number of supplementary questions. Perhaps we might go on to another question.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I appreciate we must get on with the business of the House but this is

April 8. 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry part of the business of the House, Mr. Speaker. In view of the addendum of the President of the Privy Council I would much rather not accept the insinuation, but in view of some of the questions raised on this side of the House I would hope that the Prime Minister would use the power and persuasion of his office to have this whole matter of the director referred to the appropriate standing committee of the House.


Mr. Speaker:: The	hon.	member	for
Battleford-Kindersley.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister got up on his feet to answer the question.


An hon. Member:: He needs protection.


Mr. Speaker:: The	hon.	member	for
Battleford-Kindersley.



PENITENTIARIES


Mr. Rod Thomson (Battleford-Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Solicitor General. In view of another suicide in one of Canada's penitentiaries, making a total of seven so far this year, what does the Solicitor General plan to do about this very awkward social problem?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in the House on two occasions within the last few days, we are taking a very serious view of this matter.
I am having an investigation made in the Montreal area on the number of recent suicides there by a committee composed of three staff members of the government correctional agencies, a psychologist, a classification officer and a classification director with, as a consultant Professor Frechette, a psychologist and professor of criminology. This Committee is investigating the regrettable suicides in the Montreal area.
Within the department I am also having research done on all suicides since 1959 and at the conclusion of this will take whatever steps are necessary to get to the root of this situation. In addition we are examining matters-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Simcoe North.


Gerald William Baldwin: A supplementary-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder whether we might not move on to another

subject. I feel a bit guilty that a number of members have been awaiting an opportunity since yesterday to ask questions. The hon. member for Simcoe North.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: My question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare, Mr. Speaker. In view of the interesting dilemma surrounding the astronauts due to contact with German measles and the great increase in this disease, with its attendant morbidity and mortality, in certain states of the United States in many people not vaccinated, even though a 'preventive vaccine has been in use for the last year, when can we expect release of this preventive vaccine in Canada?


John Carr Munro: I will be pleased to check into the matter and let the hon. member know, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Bigg:: On a question of urgent privilege, Mr. Speaker, don't anybody panic but a fire bomb has been dropped outside Room 235. I was wondering what explanation there might be for this rather serious breach of security.


An hon. Member:: We didn't do it; we are all here.
Another hon. Member: Another government backbencher revolting.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if we might have the proper party look into this matter.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure the matter is being looked into if the situation is as suggested by the hon. member.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. William Skoreyko (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, it never fails; I get to my feet and the members of the press gallery leave. I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question. In view of his impending absence from the House in a few weeks and in view of the serious unemployment situation across Canada, would the Prime Minister enlighten the House before his departure on any impending programs that might alleviate the situation?
April 8, 1970


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, my impending departure will take place in a month's time so I think the question may be premature.


Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: A supplementary question for the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. In view of Canada's growing commercial and economic ties with Japan, will the Prime Minister consider making his forthcoming Osaka trip an all-party affair to show united Canadian support for Expo 70?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will give it consideration but I must advise the hon. member that there is a limit to the weight that can be carried on the aircraft.


An hon. Member:: You can go by reindeer.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, I can understand the Prime Minister's irritation after viewing last night's Academy Awards. A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I do not wish to go on the trip, but would the Prime Minister consider at least inviting the leaders of the other parties?



TRANSPORT


Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Is it the intention of the government to clearly instruct the Canadian Transport Commission to reject the request of Kaiser Steel to deliver coal from Fernie, B.C. to Roberts Bank by an American railway?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it would be in any way appropriate for the government to issue instructions with regard to a hearing now under way before the commission. If and when the commission reaches its decision it will then, of course, be subject to appeal and will be dealt with in the appropriate manner at that time.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. On March 25 the Parliamentary Secretary to the minister took notice of a question by the hon.
Inquiries of the Ministry member for Oshawa-Whitby asking if his department was conducting an investigation into the affairs of Hustler Corporation in Sydney to determine if there was a misuse of public funds. Could the minister report on this matter and indicate to the House what action is being taken by his department or by Devco to deal with this situation where 1 understand there has been a shutdown of operations?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, my
department is not doing anything but Devco is inquiring into the matter. I have had no report up to now. I understand that in the meantime the management has been changed.


John Stratford Burton: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is Devco giving any consideration to making arrangements to take over the operations of Hustler Corporation so that employment may be continued at this plant?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I can inquire into this and make a report later.



HISTORIC SITES


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for historic sites. Has the hon. gentleman received a report from the National Historic Sites and Monuments Board with respect to the historical significance of the former home of Hugh John Macdonald in Winnipeg?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: No, Mr. Speaker.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the imminence of the demolition of this building, which I believe is to start on April 15, can the minister give an assurance that this matter is under active consideration and that there will be a report before that date?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I understand the board is looking into it right now. I will inquire and report to the hon. member.



BROADCASTING


Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, may I address a question to the

April 8. 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry Secretary of State? In view of the fact that the Canadian Radio-Television Commission has announced that the broadcasting licence of radio station CKPM is only being renewed for the balance of this year, will the minister look into the matter and determine how many applications have been received for this new assignment? Also, is it a fact that some of these applications were received before the announcement was made?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I could inquire and give the hon. member the information he is requesting.



NATIONAL PARKS


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, may I address a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Would the minister indicate his department's position with regard to the establishment of a national park at Bonne Bay, Newfoundland, in view of the white paper announced by the premier of that province which categorically rejects the government's plan for the park?

Hen. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):	Mr. Speaker, I did receive the report yesterday and I am studying it at present. I will be pleased to give the hon. member my views on this matter as soon as I have completed my study of the report.



POST OFFICE


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of a statement made by the minister a few days ago, as reported in a press dispatch by Victor Mackie, may I ask the minister if the government is giving consideration to any means whereby the carrying of mail on our cross country air routes might be given to lines other than Air Canada?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I think this question 
should more properly be directed to the Minister of Communications. All I know is what I have read in the papers.


Stanley Howard Knowles: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Inasmuch as the press report says that the statement was made by the Minister of Transport, is he not in a position to comment on it?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, what I said, I believe, was that I understood that negotiations or talks were going on, but I am not in possession of information respecting the specifics of those talks.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Robert Lorne Stanfield: I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question about his impending trip. I assure him I am not seeking accommodation myself. I wish to know whether in his party on the trip there is to be an expert on grain selling, so that the good will created by the Prime Minister in the course of this trip can be turned to immediate advantage in perhaps opening up supplementary markets for our wheat in the countries the Prime Minister will be visiting?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Of course, Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Bravo!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Thank you.


Robert Muir: Come on. Don't be like that. Stand up! Stand up!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I don't understand.


Robert Muir: We
realize that you do not understand. The Prime Minister does not understand a lot, especially with regard to unemployment in the country.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Robert Muir: That does not bother the Prime Minister; unemployment does not bother him. He does not worry.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
April 8, 1970


Robert Lorne Stanfield: All right, now-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: If this is a joke it is a joke, but I am asking the Prime Minister a serious question and I should like a serious answer.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Muir: Come on, Oscar.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Give your
leader a chance.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of Slate for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to reply to a question that was taken as notice yesterday and that came from the hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster (Mr. Bell) in connection with the earthquake in Turkey.
The Canadian International Development Agency has given the International Red Cross an amount of $15,000, through the Canadian Red Cross, following the earthquake in Turkey. As a matter of fact, the Canadian Red Cross has likewise granted an additional $15,000 to the International Red Cross.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Red Deer.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege which affects all members of the House and particularly your office. We have just seen a demonstration of control in the House of Commons. The Prime Minister of this country has deliberately usurped your office and authority in this House by his attitude, his petulant attitude.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Hon. members can laugh, but this is still a democracy and I am raising a question of privilege which affects this House and every member of it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The Prime Minister, by his very attitude, reflected on your authority to keep order in the House of Commons and he 22218-11
Hate Propaganda
would not reply to a serious question put to him by the Leader of the Opposition. He would not reply to him because of a few cat-calls.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: We have all been subjected to them. I do not get very many but I do not complain about the few I do get.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I try to continue talking. I respect your authority and your command of the House. The Prime Minister reflected on your duties and your position in the House, and that should not go unnoticed because it affects the privileges of every person here. When the Leader of the Opposition asked a serious question he got no reply because the Prime Minister felt he could not stand the cat-calls. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: I think this might be a very good moment to call orders of the day.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, April 7, consideration of Bill C-3, to amend the Criminal Code as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, and Motion No. 2 (Mr. Woolliams).
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. .Speaker, may I direct the attention of the House to the legislation before us, Bill C-3.
' Mr. Speaker: Order please. May I call the attention of hon. members to the fact that the conversations going on make it very difficult for the Chair to hear the hon. member who has the floor.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I wish first of all to say, through you, to the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander), our distinguished colleague in the House, that I am most grateful for the remarks he made, as are hon. members on all sides of the House. No

April 8, 1970
Hate Propaganda
one can doubt the sincerity of those remarks and no one can but respect the articulate manner in which they were expressed. If I thought Bill C-3 would bring about that state of affairs in our nation with respect to our people which the hon. member expects or hopes it will bring about, I should be completely in support of this bill. I cam but agree with the basic objectives and motivation behind those remarks. I say that with the utmost sincerity. However, Mr. Speaker, it is my opinion that this bill will not accomplish what those who support it hope it will accomplish. I believe that the contrary will prove to be the case. I wish to elaborate briefly on why I believe this.
The matter of genocide and hate literature referred to in Bill C-3 is of very deep concern to every conscientious Canadian. I speak with much feeling on this subject of personal freedom, individual and civil rights. As the result of my own convictions in this regard I spent 15 years, the best years of my life, dedicated to the premise that those less fortunate than myself were entitled to the same assurance of freedom and liberty that I have enjoyed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Norman Thompson: One of the highlights of this experience was my opportunity to travel with a shipload of refugees from Nazi oppression in Europe who were picked up in Lisbon and Cadiz in January, 1944. These refugees were the first to reach the shores of their promised land, by the Mediterranean route, during the midst of war. I was part of that historic voyage.
At this time when the talk of civil rights and race riots in our neighbouring nation, the United States, is part of our daily headlines and the cry of discrimination is heard even in Canada, I think all decent Canadians deplore the dissemination of hatred. However, I am not sure that this situation can ever be better controlled by the implementation of this law. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner), and I direct these remarks to the hon. minister at this time, have made it very clear in previous legislation which we have dealt with in this Parliament that the state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation. In other words, what they have tried to convey has been the fact that you cannot legislate morality; that you cannot, through the passage of laws, improve the nature of men or control their personal habits. In introducing this bill, they are inconsistent with that premise. If the state 
has no business in the bedrooms of the nation, it has no business in the living rooms of the nation or in the hearts of individuals. It seems to me there is a good deal of inconsistency as far as the government is concerned in pressing this legislation as they are doing. The roots of race prejudice go so deep that they are not likely to be affected by the laws that this Parliament can pass. I am convinced that only when people replace hatred and prejudice with love and tolerance will we ever eradicate prejudice, genocide and hate literature.
It is essential, and this is part of my own personal conviction, that human beings, divinely created with spiritual needs and potentialities, have inalienable rights which must be respected and preserved. I am sure we all agree on this. The question that looms before us is, how can this be assured? I feel sure that this was uppermost in the thoughts and minds of those who sponsored Bill C-3. I believe that those who have been involved in the long drawn-out deliberations over the past five or six years have been motivated by good intentions. However, good intentions alone are not an adequate safeguard.
The real difficulty with Bill C-3 is that it attempts to qualify freedom of speech. Freedom cannot be cut into pieces, discarding, according to someone's opinion, certain aspects and then retaining others. I was particularly impressed by some comments made by the eminent British historian Sir Arthur Bryant. In an article which appeared in the Illustrated London News, in 1964 he made the following statement:
But to render such incitement-
This means incitement such as Bill C-3 is attempting to eliminate.
-a criminal offence would be, so far as I can see, a denial of the very principle out of which the English belief and practice of toleration has grown. For the essence of that principle is that men should be free to speak and write what is in their minds without the interference or interdict of those in authority, and once that principle is denied, in the name of whatever virtue, freedom of speech and thought must very quickly cease to exist.
However deplorable such ill-education and prejudice, and however important it is to remove them by education and the active promotion of reason and humanity, to prohibit the public discussion of controversial topics because of their effect on vulgar minds can only lead to the establishment of the very despotism we deplore. The reason why the advocates of religious and racial persecution have failed in the past to win support for their vile, creeds here, as they so tragically have succeeded in doing in other lands, is because we have allowed freedom of discussion instead of suppressing it.
April 8. 1970

"Good beats bad where the fight is only free," we used to sing at my old school and it is true.
The true believer in toleration is the man who defends from persecution and victimization the very opponent whose opinions he most strenuously opposes. That is what in this country we mean by respect for freedom, and it will be an ill day for us if we ever lose it.
For every disseminator of hate literature and hatred in this country there are 999, perhaps even 99,999, who are opposed to and abhor such hatred. It is these people, so vastly in the majority, who will control the few who, because of the sickness of their own minds or hearts, are willing to allow themselves to become the disseminators of hatred and prejudice. I suggest to the House that the words of William Ewart Gladstone are very [DOT]applicable today. He said:
It is liberty-that fits men for liberty-liberty, that is, for every man to express his opinions freely, however unpopular, foolish or wrong-headed they may be. Everyone wants liberty to express his own opinions; the test of a love of freedom is a man's willingness to allow the same liberty to others to express opinions that he detests and despises.
It is impossible to have freedom of speech without having those who will use it for silly, irrelevant and evil causes. This may be a high price to pay, but it is the only true way to preserve the rights of individuals. No matter to what extent a man is wrong, he has the right to express himself. Any attempt to curtail the rights of a communist, Nazi or religious bigot is to also ultimately menace the rights of the sanest and fairest of persons. To attack the rights of one man, is to attack the rights of everyone.
Herein lies the chief evil of Bill C-3. There are others. In 267A(4) an "identifiable group" is defined as "any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion or ethnic origin." What is the definition of religion? Who is to define it? I might choose to define the communist ideology as a religion and then I might choose to condemn it as hateful and contemptible. The implications are ridiculous. How can this bill ever become a positive part of our statutes?
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
The British common law derives its strength from the fact that it is an unwritten code. It is one of the great heritages we have in this country and God forbid we should adopt a substitute. I know that among supporters of the government there are many who agree with what I am saying. A few have had the courage to speak out and express their convictions. I wish they would all do so.
Hate Propaganda
It was Lincoln who said that to sin by silence is to make cowards of men. In speaking to this bill, some of the government's supporters have referred indirectly to an editorial which appeared in the Globe and Mail of Tuesday, April 7. They criticized certain parts of it but they never really told us what the editorial had said. Mr. Speaker, I am so convinced about the merit of this editorial that I intend to read it into the record in its entirety in order that hon. members may know the true gist of what the writer was seeking to convey.
"The problem of trying to render synonymous law and morality is that we then come down to the question: Whose morality? Whose standards of behaviour? Whose sense of morality? Who is to de*-termine the standard? Who is to attribute blame? Who is to say what is moral and immoral? Who is to decide when moral responsibility exists in terms of freedom of will, and when it has to be diluted in human terms because of environmental or physical causes?-In a pluralistic society there may be different standards, differing attitudes and the law cannot reflect them all. Public order, in this situation of a pluralistic society, cannot substitute for private conduct. We believe that morality is a matter for private conscience. Criminal law should, reflect the public order only."
This was the very argument used by the Minister of Justice when the amendments to the Criminal Code legalizing homesexuality and amending the laws on abortion and divorce were put through this House.


Mr. Jerome:: Did you support it?


Robert Norman Thompson: I am thinking about horn members on the other side who then supported that premise and who now seem to be repudiating it by their arguments.


James Alexander Jerome: Did you support it then?


Robert Norman Thompson: No. I stated very clearly my reasons for my not supporting it. Go back to the record in Hansard. There were other reasons involved. The editorial from which I have been reading continues:
The speaker: Justice Minister John Turner. The time: a year ago almost to the day. The occasion: the debate on the government's amendments to the Criminal Code liberalizing the law relating to homosexuality and abortion.
Now Mr. Turner is back in the House for the third reading of another amendment to the Criminal Code: the government's hate bill. However, he has conveniently forgotten the determined intention so often expressed by himself and Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau to separate law and morality. Mr. Trudeau's famous statement was that law doesn't belong in the bedrooms of the nation. But neither does it belong in the hearts of its citizens.
Yet that's where the hate bill would put it. The bill is a clear attempt to legislate morality. Its main section would make it a crime to communi-

April 8, 1970
Hate Propaganda
cate statements that promote hatred. Why? Not because anything follows from that. Not because public order is disturbed. Not because windows are broken or a mob becomes unruly. Not because anyone is endangered or because there is an assault or a trespass or a breach of the peace or even the likelihood of a breach of the peace. It simply says it is wrong and a crime to promote hate. Period.
In this context it has nothing to do with the public order.
That is the answer to the hon. member across the way who has been asking questions.
Our history is littered with examples of the futility of trying to regulate morality. As Harry Arthurs, Associate Dean of Osgoode Hall, has repeatedly said, it just won't work. Belief in this kind of law "rests upon a miscalculation about the efficacy of criminal law".
Mr. Turner recognized the truth of this and applied it in that same debate on homosexuality and abortion. He concluded by saying, "A penal law is not a good law unless it is an enforceable law. A law which is not enforceable is not a good law. The same applies here. And as if to compound the folly, the government would make the hate legislation even less of a law than it otherwise would be by saying that it could only be invoked with the specific consent of the Attorney-General. That changes it from law to political discretion. It would apply not to all citizens. It would apply only to the citizens Mr. Turner wanted it to apply to.
On top of that, even when he did apply it, the law would mean different things at different times. An escape clause says promoting hate would be all right-there would be such a thing as justifiable hatred-if it was for the public benefit.
Each judge, each jury, at each different point of time will have a different answer. What one day was an exercise in freedom of speech another day could become a criminal act.
Hatred can't be banned absolutely. At least the bill recognizes that. There are so many willing, even eager, to be roused to hatred over innocuous statements that an absolute ban would be terribly unjust. But in trying to define what is socially useful hatred the government has entered a catacomb of confusion. It ignores that social attitudes cannot be ruled by law and that the strength of a democracy rests on the sanity and reasonableness of an informed public.
Those words are profound, Mr. Speaker.
As a spokesman for the Canadian Civil Liberties Association said when the bill was before committee: "Many useful utterances in a democratic society incite what could be described, at the very least, as bitter feelings." It is the citizens, not the law, who must cope with these feelings. If they fail, then our society fails. And only the law will be left standing righteous and indignant and alone.
I might refer at this point to another editorial on this subject which appeared in the same paper on May 18, 1966. It reads, in part:
In Canada we have heretofore jailed people for offences they have committed. Are we now to jail

them for what they only intended to do, though the opposite may have occurred, or even to jail them for what they did not intend to do, and for what did not happen anyway? That is a net from which few poor fish, indeed, may escape.
What it comes down to is that truth and freedom are fashioned, always and forever, in a furnace of controversy.
This House has proved the truth of that statement over and over again.
Someone is always uttering something to incite somebody to hatred and contempt against some group or other, and sometimes it serves the public good and sometimes it does not. Therefore, if we create a law to stop the mouths of the ugly little neo-Nazis we create a law that sometime, somewhere may be used to stop other mouths-and those other mouths may belong to the prophets and the redeemers. In the past, they often have.
I would remind the Minister of Justice of the truth of that statement. I also wish to quote at this point the statement made by Dr. Frank R. Scott, a scholar on legal and political affairs. This is what he said when he appeared before a Senate committee in April of last year:
"I don't want the state in the sitting rooms of the nation any more than I want it in the bedrooms of the nation. I think my right to intellectual freedom is even greater than my right to sexual freedom."
This is the essence of his statement.
The protection of these basic rights must not include such action as would defeat its own purpose. With the greatest respect to the hon. members who sponsored this bill, and their reasons for doing so, I say that this measure, if enacted in its present form and if carried to its ultimate end, would result in freedom of the press and freedom of speech becoming a thing of the past. Extreme caution must be exercised; the outcome might be the suppression rather than the retention of truth and justice.
Again, I emphasize that within our free and democratic society there must not be a place for discrimination, prejudice or hatred, whether in relation to colour, creed or race. Basically we shall never achieve the desired goals of freedom unless men's hearts are changed, and the resulting attitudes permit people in all their diversity to live in tolerance and peace with their neighbours. The problem is much deeper than man-made laws can reach.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
If this law were carried to its full extent, I am afraid it would cover any criticism, even the telling of an Irish joke. The president of
April 8. 1970

the Montreal CNTU would be behind bars for what he said to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) a few weeks ago if Bill C-3 were the law. Paragraph 267B(2) would back up every separatist. Paragraph 267C could send the editors of Mac lean's to jail for their attacks on certain groups.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but I am afraid that his time has expired, unless he has unanimous consent to proceed. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Robert Norman Thompson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and my concluding statement will be short. If this bill were law, it could even put Dr. Davidson, the president of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation behind bars for many of the statements made on the CBC. For example, there was a CBC program last Monday night which attempted to generate hatred toward the citizenry of my own province, the province of Alberta. I doubt that the answer to racial hatred is a law which only emphasizes people's differences and opens the door to bigotry and endless litigation. All citizens of Canada stand equal before the law. It is my conviction that this is the best protection for every man and group within a free democratic concept.
I also want to tell the Minister of Justice that legislation such as this so-called hate literature bill would open the way for every imaginable evil known to mankind in our society, plus some not yet known. A virtual police state would be necessary to ensure that the law would be carried out to the letter. Censorship and book burning will only be a phase in the complete loss of freedom for every Canadian.
I do not speak as a lawyer, because I am not of that profession, nevertheless I am convinced that there are sections of the Criminal Code relating to the subject of criminal libel which do apply to the problem. I would appreciate it if the Minister of Justice would take note of this. Properly used, there is no reason to think they are inadequate to give protection to the person against whom hate literature is directed.
The applicable portion of the Criminal Code is found in section 248 (1) which provides:
A defamatory libel is matter published, without lawful justification or excuse, that is likely to injure the reputation of any person by exposing him
Hate Propaganda
to hatred, contempt or ridicule, or that is designed to insult the person of or concerning whom it is published.
Section 250 provides that:
Every one who publishes a defamatory libel that he knows is false is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for five years.
Section 251 provides:
Every one who publishes a defamatory libel is guilty of an idictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for two years.
Each time a new law is passed, for every right that is granted, a freedom is taken away from someone else. A law like this definitely restricts freedom of speech and of the press. The present law relating to libel maintains a most careful balance between private freedom from libel and the public interest in freedom of speech. New legislation will tend to upset this balance. The world does have evil people as well as good. The exposing of this evil is a matter of public interest, and even sometimes a matter of public duty, even though this may come within the technical category of hate literature.
We must recognize that deliberately false hate propaganda is sometimes used to bring discredit upon respectable and bona fide publications of particular political views. The technique used is to obtain a quantity of the bona fide material, and send it out with scurrilous hate literature to selected persons, who will then tend to associate the two. Here, therefore, the libel is against the victims of the hate, and against the bona fide publisher who is unfairly associated with this hate. Possibly there is need for greater protection within the law for this situation. This could be brought about by amending the present law, by extending it, rather than by replacing it.
In closing, may I emphasize again that within our free and democratic society there must be no place for discrimation, prejudice or hatred, whether it relates to colour, creed or race. Man made laws might assist, but alone they will never solve the problem. Christ put it clearly and simply when He said that "the fulfilling of the law is love. When hearts are filled with love there can be no hatred". Until they are, this problem will be with us. Moral problems are associated with the individual and are something which, in my opinion, are beyond the reaches of a law such as this. Therefore, in this respect this legislation is redundant.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Mr. Speaker, after listening to the speeches made
5S4S

the people. I have much more faith in those people than in any man made laws which may nibble at our freedoms and in the long run destroy us. Yes, I have more faith in the sermon on the mount than I have in any man made law. I believe this bill would defeat the very purpose for which it was drafted.


Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I welcome the opportunity to speak in support of the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) and to give my endorsement to the position which he has so capably enunciated.
To properly set the stage for my remarks, I should like to begin by concurring with members on both sides of the House who have stated categorically that they believe this bill is a totally unnecessary piece of legislation. I suppose we could argue the pros and cons of the intent of this bill until the next flood or until the cows come home-an expression we use out west-but I think we would still be left with the fundamental truth that no government can legislate the thoughts and emo ions of people.
At a time when members of this House agree that we are living in an era wherein we have many laws which are outdated, antiquated and ineffective, and at a time when we are in the process of revising and reforming the Criminal Code, the government sees fit to put another ill-conceived and unworkable law on the statute books. I feel that the government has simply become engrossed in the principle of ruling by divine right, irrespective of the consequences.
I am not a lawyer and I do not intend to concern myself with the legal ramifications of the bill. There is little doubt in my mind, however, that the best legal minds in this country will be hard pressed to make a fair and equitable interpretation of the provisions of this bill. Even here in Parliament where laws are made, it is difficult to find three members who can arrive at a consensus as to what the government is really trying to say in Bill C-3 or what it is trying to accomplish.
I am intrigued by the implication in this bill that any person who has passed the bar examination in any one of our ten provinces, and is admitted to practice, can then justifiably argue and adjudicate in matters of love and hate. For the first time in my life I am being asked to believe that human emotions can be directed and controlled by law in the same way as murder or auto theft, or other human acts. I reject this theory in totality.
Hate Propaganda
Many of my colleagues and other members of the House have taken issue with the so-called safeguards against the misuse or abuse of the provisions of this bill. Where the provisions of a law are open to individual interpretation and the application of such interpretations are left to the discretion of the courts and jurists, then there are no safeguards for the one person who is entitled to that safeguard or guarantee, namely the one who is charged under the law. We have here a law that seeks to control and regulate the emotions of love and hate, and a law that allows the courts of the land to interpret an alleged crime in any way it sees fit. I fear this bill is an open invitation to the commission of gross misrepresentation.
The bill states that a person can legally dispense inflammatory material about other persons and groups if he can prove that such statements are intended for the public benefit. It further states that it is not an offence if the inflammatory statements are factual. I wondei whether this is some kind of a new political or legal jargon. I wonder whether this is a new language that is being written into the statute books. I wonder whether this government is trying to perfect a new and unique language of law, all on its own. If this is the case, perhaps the government will also operate classes in this new law for the benefit of the country's lawyers and jurists. I find it difficult to conceive of any traditional lawyer or judge being able to discharge his respective responsibilities and functions equitably unless he is let in on the open secret of this new terminology.
I am puzzled by the government's position that it can legislate against such an emotion as hate without first taking steps to remove the motivation behind such an emotion. Hate is not a physical quality. Hate is an emotion, a mental quality. So this government is trying to control events after the fact rather than attack the root causes of the problems.
The bill is meant to eliminate or at least minimize the risk of riots or other physical violence by making it illegal to express such public criticisms against a person or persons or identifiable groups on the basis of colour, creed or religion or ethnic origin. Perhaps the one paragraph that should have been included was one to the effect that if the bill were passed we would have an instant flowery utopia.
Hate Propaganda
[DOT] (3:50 p.ra.)
Perhaps those who drafted this bill should have done a little more research into the effectiveness of other such laws already on the books, such as the laws concerning the illegal use of drugs, for example. We have strict laws with regard to the possession or trafficking of harmful drugs such as marijuana, LSD and so on. At the same time, the drug problem is becoming worse every day. But here again we find it is easier to have a law than to look into the root causes of the problem in an effort to find the motivation behind the usage of these drugs. Another example is the law which prevents farmers giving surplus wheat or other grains to their fellow human beings, even though these people may be on the verge of starvation. To me it is incomprehensible in this supposed age of reason, and in these times of alleged great affluence, these times when we merely pay lip service to humanity and humanism, that we should take up the important time of this House in dealing with a piece of futile legislation such as we have before us today. As much as I favour the efforts of mankind to eliminate hate and suspicion from the world, any attempt to legislate hatred out of sight and out of mind is an exercise in futility.
I dislike the word "hate". I would like to see it removed from the dictionary. I believe there certainly are other ways in which we can remove the hatred, if that is what we wish to call it, that exists in our nation and in other nations. Inequalities and iniquities of individuals in the same society are certainly the underlying causes of hatred and distrust. Any government would be remiss if it did not attack the problem from this direction rather than create a set of laws on top of the laws we already have. In this respect our present government is running true to form by taking the easy way out. As the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Saltsman) capably pointed out in his speech last night, if this legislation is enacted the government then can sit back content that it has disposed of the problems of hatred and distrust among all our citizens and between our many ethnic groups.
I do not believe the problem can be disposed of so easily. Unfortunately, human nature cannot be packaged up and delivered in the right amounts to the right places when needed. Equality of individuals in their societies must precede legislation when one is dealing with human emotions. Equality means equal opportunity to act, to speak and to participate. Equality breeds respect for the 
April 8, 1970
individual. This is where the whole process of eliminating the root causes of hatred must begin. Before you have equality you must have mutual trust. That mutual trust can come about only through mutual consideration and understanding. Perhaps hon. members may feel I am somewhat old fashioned in my approach to the humanistic problems and perhaps more so because we are living in a very technocratic and complex age. Perhaps this is where we have gone off the track. I must confess I am old fashioned enough to still believe in the strong family unit as the cornerstone of any free and healthy society. We are all witness to the consequence of the collapse of the family unit as the basic unit in Canadian society. There is even stronger evidence of this to the south of us.
Do we need more evidence? Must we fall all the way to the bottom of the ladder before we realize we are losing our grip? I wonder how long it will take our present government to realize we must step back a pace or two in an effort to rescue the individual in our society from the oppressions of want and lack of equality of opportunity. I am one who believes we have everything in this country we need to eliminate the causes of hatred, the causes of discontent and the causes of distrust. I do not believe we need restrictive laws or legislation to control human emotions. Human emotions cannot be restricted. When one tries to restrict human emotions that are striving for expression in thought and ideals, I say one is inviting catastrophe. In Bill C-3 we have the seeds of an enormous catastrophe that will flourish unless we deal with root causes rather than trying to legislate against inevitable consequences. If the government is at loss for a starting point, if it is unable to establish guidelines for a program that would elevate the individual to his rightful status, I might recommend they start with the Ten Commandments. This set of basic tenets has served humanity well for almost 2,000 years.
Perhaps the government might re-emphasize these tenets and rededicate the citizens of this country to the application of the golden rule.
I do not know of anyone who has come up with a better set of standards for human conduct than these two I have enunciated. Of course, if the government should elect to try a basic humanistic approach to our social problems, this would be more difficult than pushing needless legislation through this House. But then perhaps it is time for the government to get up off its majority and get down to work. I could furnish the government

April 8. 1970

with a long list of names of my constituents who think the government should get to work and face this issue squarely.
To return to the provisions of the bill that would protect ethnic groups from insult, discrimination and slander, as was pointed out by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) last night, I can only say that I as a member of an ethnic group am not unfamiliar with the consequences of human indifference or intolerance for others. I, too, have suffered some consequences of intolerance, bigotry and insult. My particular constituency is composed of pockets of people of various ethnic origins. But, Mr. Speaker, neither I nor my constituents have ever believed, nor do we believe now, that such influences could be legislated out of sight or out of mind. I would not be so naive as to suggest that I, as a citizen of Canada, would be a better Canadian if this law had been in effect when I was a young boy; nor do the people whom I represent feel they would be better Canadians if this legislation had been in effect for the last 100 years. Whatever insults they were subjected to have been eliminated only by hard work and by dedication to the basic human ideals in which they believe.
It is only by learning to appreciate the freedoms with which we are blessed that we can appreciate what it would be like if we did not have them. I say that chipping away at individual freedoms, such as freedom of expression and freedom of choice, will never restore human dignity or nurture human dignity. We need only restore that one quality that is needed to preserve our society and make it flourish. Many of my colleagues have mentioned the fact that we are being led by demagogues masquerading as parliamentarians. If this bill should become law and our fears concerning the real intent of Information Canada are realized, then there is little doubt that demagoguery will flourish in our midst.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)


Mr. Cliff Downey (Battle River):: I should like to speak in support of this amendment. I would say regarding the so-called hate literature bill that, however commendable its intent, I am convinced it is impossible to accomplish this intent by any legislative device. I believe further that the dangers of misuse of this proposed legislation far outweigh any small good that it might hope to achieve.
Hate Propaganda
The first thing that comes to mind with regard to a measure like this is a statement attributed to President Lyndon Johnson of the United States. He said that every piece of legislation should be examined, not in the light of the good it will do if it is properly administered but in the light of the damage it will do if it is improperly administered. I say that there is a great deal of legislation that goes through that should be considered in this light.
I can well understand the strong feelings of some members of minority groups, notably members of the Canadian Jewish community who back this measure. They have suffered much from organized hate campaigns, and even today I suppose they continue at times to suffer some embarrassment and harassment. I deplore this as much as any Canadian but I do not believe that a legislative measure such as the one we have before us will end this persecution, and it could well bring about for other minority groups the very oppression its supporters seek to end. To the best of my knowledge no similar legislation anywhere at any time has been effective in controlling hate. On the contrary, I can see the very likely possibility of this measure being abused to a great extent.
This bill defines an "identifiable group" as being one distinguished by colour, race, religion or ethnic origin. Where would this leave Negroes who, in some cases, have adopted as their slogan "kill whitey"? How would it help them? Would it not work to their disadvantage if they used this slogan? Perhaps even the more reasonable groups would find it would work to their disadvantage.
This bill makes it a criminal offence for anyone to incite or promote hatred or contempt of any identifiable group within the community, and inciting or promoting takes in everything, even to "gestures".
Back at the end of February-to be exact on February 26-there were newspaper stories in the Globe and Mail about a panel discussion at Halifax on the cultural and religious life of people in the Halifax-Dartmouth area. During the discussion a young black man threatened to bomb Halifax city hall if Negroes in the community were not treated more fairly. If this bill were passed he would be wide open to prosecution. Is this the sort of thing that Canadians really want to see happen in a free society? Who is to say where rhetorical emphasis, such as many similar threats of violence really are, ends and serious advocacy of hatred and contempt begins?

April 8, 1970
Hate Propaganda
Over the past two or three years similar wild threats, similar appeals to direct action and the employment of organized intolerance and hatred have featured controversy in our cities, on our campuses, and sometimes in our politics. I believe that the existing provisions of our Criminal Code are quite adequate to control deliberate propagation of hate campaigns and the dissemination of the so-called hate literature. The more law we have on the subject, the greater the margin for abuse.
To my mind, education and the gradual achievement of greater mutual understanding remain the best and only true means of ending such social diseases as discrimination and inter-group hatred. The Globe and Mail issue of February 26 contained an editorial about Contrast, a newspaper for blacks published in Toronto. It referred to a cartoon in Contrast showing Abraham Lincoln in the garb of the Ku Klux Klan and suggesting that he had been "a white man's president" only. The same newspaper subsequently stated that "the resentment against and hatred of whitey. ..is becoming more widespread".
If this bill becomes law, will discussion of the tensions between black and white, which were apparent in the above quotation, be suppressed by law? If so, will such suppression merely build up pressures that will eventually break out in real and bloody violence? We wonder if this is the real aim of Bill C-3.
If we take a close look at Canadian society today we will find many examples of groups within it that are in a state of great tension in their relationships. Events in the Middle East, for example, have bred intolerable tensions between the Canadian Jewish and Arab communities. Are such innocent participants in this struggle as writers of letters to newspaper editors, who are often carried away into intemperate expression, to be prosecuted under this proposed amendment to the Criminal Code? What about the continuing tension between the English and French language groups? Are we going to prosecute the spokesmen of the native peoples who frequently accuse the white Canadian establishment of pursuing a policy of genocide? When we look at sbme of the statements of one of the Indian leaders, namely Mr. Cardinal, we realize that many of them can be termed inflammatory. How would they fit into the context of this bill?
We even have great tension and disagreement growing up between one region of Canada and another. No one can deny that

the West, for instance, is disenchanted to the point of talking about economic independence and even political and constitutional separation. Such a state of feeling breeds violent and intemperate words. Perhaps it is the intention of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) to use this convenient amendment to jail western spokesmen who claim Ottawa is unjust and unfeeling.
There is so much afoot in our country today, so many areas of conflict, that hatred, contempt and ridicule are very easy to generate. But I do not believe for one moment that we can abate this sort of thing by piously passing an act of Parliament and then washing our hands of the situation until someone forces a prosecution against his adversary. To me, this bill is an open invitation to endless and barren legal disputes. All we are really doing is giving hatred and contention another dimension. Every group with a bone to pick with another group can now shift the battle to the legal and judicial arena. We would be far better employed in this House considering ways and means of broadening, understanding and modifying intemperate and dangerous public expression and action than in trying to legislate it under the rug.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
It has been increasingly evident, and not only in Canada, that we feel we can legislate almost anything away and that legislation is the salvation of everything. If we have this much faith in legislation surely someone, the government possibly, could place legislation before the House on prosperity. A bill on that subject would be about as impractical as the one we have here. During this session we have had legislation to improve the Post Office and legislation with regard to language. Has the legislation improved the mail service? Has it improved the relationship between the language groups? I do not think it has been any more effective in these areas than it will be-


Mr. Woolliams:: They are great legislators. That is all they do.


Cliff Downey: -in the area of hate. The hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankow-ski) mentioned a basic moral code and the ten commandments. I would add that what we need in this country is a basic pride of individualism, a basic pride in our country. This must be developed. We cannot continually downgrade our heritage, our institutions and the family unit and expect to substitute
April 8, 1970

legislation for them. We cannot make citizens merely social security numbers, entirely divorced from personal responsibility, and then expect to fill this gap with legislation.
When looking at the proposed tax reform I notice that the idea of treating the family as a taxation unit has been left out almost entirely. This is only one area that tends to bind society together. We may find that legislation in many other areas is not necessary if we can conduct our affairs in a manner to perpetuate the individual and the family unit.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I should like to quote from an editorial in the Globe and Mail of February 26, which I mentioned earlier. It reads as follows:
Democracy depends upon there being a public that is predominantly sane and reasonable. A public that can discuss volatile issues-that must discuss volatile issues-and find fair and reasonable solutions. If the government has lost hope that this kind of democracy can continue to exist then it' has lost faith in democracy itself. No law can produce this kind of public. No law can protect minorities where this kind of public no longer exists. There will always be those in whom hate can be readily generated. There may not always be those with the strength and skill to combat hate. The way to build those strengths and skills is not with laws written in fear. It is in providing the circumstances and the opportunity in which citizens can grow to their full potential. It is in providing good education, fair standards of living and an equitable and responsive system of government. Provide these and there will be no need for a hate bill.


Mr. Sieven Otto (York East):: Mr. Speaker, from time to time in this House an issue arises upon which members have to make a choice in conscience. This is easier for members of the opposition than for members on this side of the House.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Do you want to join us?


Steven Otto: I admire the members on this side who spoke in opposition to this bill, and I fully realize that it is a struggle to come to terms with the two issues in reality.
This debate boils down to two issues, Mr. Speaker. First, there is no doubt that this bill imposes some restriction on the freedom of speech and any amount of rationalization, any word trying to deny this, just will not be accepted. Second, the question arises whether indeed criminal law can deal with immorality. It is with these two points that I wish to deal.
When we examine freedom, we are inclined to imagine some Valhalla in which freedom is power. This country is a pioneer country where a man can stand up, speak up and be effective. Everyone can speak to himself, but
22218-12J
Hate Propaganda
to be effective speech must be listened to. Times have changed many stratas of society. In the union movement, for example, it is still possible for a member of the rank and file to say that he disagrees with the executive, but the consequences can be drastic. In many cases, he may find himself laid off rather quickly even if he has seniority. I know of many instances when opposition to the election of a slate of officers has not been effective.
When we say freedom of speech, what type of freedom do we mean? To be effective and to be listened to we must have some medium of communication. It is true that the powerful and the great have freedom. Of course, newspaper commentators who are widely read have freedom, as have television commentators. All those who have power are free but to the little fellow, the average citizen, freedom is meaningless. The whole idea of freedom of speech has changed from 100 years ago when everyone more or less had the same use of the communications media of the day. It is no longer sacred as it once was. We have to live with the facts of life, and we have to live with the restrictions on freedom of speech in corporate enterprises. We have to live with the restriction on freedom of speech in this House, where at one time members spoke as they saw fit and party politics were not as well entrenched. Today, a member does this at his own cost and it is no longer possible to say that any member of this House is free to speak according to his conscience. Freedom of speech is proscribed because there is a party structure, so there is no such thing as absolute freedom of speech, as the minister pointed out.
There is something else to be dealt with in connection with the bill. We have a new order of things in the world. Two, three or even four hundred years ago, race hatred was not too dangerous. Indeed, when nationalities and races were fairly immobile the differences did not much matter. When the Normans conquered England, and that period of history lasted for 400 years, the Anglo-Saxons hated the Normans and vice versa. When the hordes of Genghis Khan came in through south central Europe and settled in what is now Hungary and Roumania, hate existed for generations and was only solved by intermarriage and a complete merging. Consider what we have today.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
McLuhan has said we live in a global village. Great numbers of people move from

April 8, 1970
Hate Propaganda
country to country. Canada has experienced immigration and the United Kingdom has experienced immigration. European workers go to England each year. People are mobile; groups are mobile and therefore at this time it is much more important to make sure that identifiable groups as defined in the bill are not the subjects of hatred because the consequences of hatred would be drastic in this country. Who would ever imagine that in the United Kingdom there would be public utterances, supported by many people, directed against West Indians and East Indians. This has happened. If that can happen in a country that treasures freedom, and that has never had a history of racial tension, then it can happen elsewhere. It could happen here. It has already happened here. Large numbers of immigrants have come in who must find jobs in our labour force. They will cause resentment. So long as it is open for anyone to pinpoint a member of a group and say, "that man is dangerous; he should be hated," the country may face trouble.
Let no one think that we have no history of racial tension. Recently at a legal convention I told lawyers about a very serious piece of legislation which affected a group of people of Japanese extraction on the West coast. They were born in Canada and were Canadians. This legislation rooted them out of their homes, took away their farms and scattered them throughout the country. You know, that was not so long ago; yet one would imagine it would be impossible for Canadians to do that today. What was done was done because the people's skins were yellow. No one could say they were a threat to the country, because most of them were second and third generation Canadians. Because their skins were yellow, they were singled out. Therefore, whoever says in this House that this will never happen again in Canada should pause and consider because it may.
May I say a word about morality and the law? I agree to some extent with those who say that morality cannot be legislated. On the other hand, who is to guide the mores of this nation? Not long ago the church guided us but not many would agree that the church today exerts effective control or guidance over the mores of this nation. I think the churches are floundering under the weight of this problem and have not solved it. Prior to the Christian era mores were dictated by the military establishment. That establishment dictated what was right and wrong. Later the churches told us what was right and wrong,

but they have now lost much of their control. For example, not long ago the medical profession said, "We now are the ones to decide when a person is dead." They said when the mind no longer functions, the person is dead. Never mind his heart, and it does not matter if a man breathes. But there was no mention of a soul. Clearly, it is now the medical profession that says when a man is dead or not dead, and not the church. Euthanasia is being promoted by the medical profession.
A new philosophy has not arisen in our civilization for the past 100 years. Who, then, shall control the mores of the nation if the church does not? If the government does not control them, will it be the technocrats or the professional men or others? We have a drug problem in this country and, as an hon. member who spoke yesterday said, it is not the church that will determine the rights or wrongs of drug consumption but the lawmakers. There are many other problems, moral problems, in which the church is not involved. Therefore any argument that says the law has nothing to do with morality no longer applies. Morality is now part of the law.
It has been said in this debate that it should be the social sanction of the community rather than the law which ought to dictate morality. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the community no longer has any power of sanction in the social sense. That power does not exist. That original power of social sanction has been broken up into fragments; but we still have retained one power. That power is exerted by the awesome weight of the criminal law, which affects mores. I do not think there will be many prosecutions under this law because, as an hon. member said yesterday, the exemptions are wide enough to drive a herd of elephants through. I think he said, "Drunken elephants". The exemptions to the infractions are so wide that the bill is practically meaningless, except to this extent: children will no longer, we hope, hear their mothers, fathers, uncles or relatives say, "That person belongs to a certain race, and they all ought to be driven out of the country." When it becomes generally known that such talk is illegal, it will not be readily accepted.
Why do I say that? I say it because the criminal law is still very powerful and the awesome authority of the Crown is still something people understand. But even if there are no prosecutions under this legislation, it will still be effective. It will carry the stamp
April 8, 1970

of approval of this House. The people of this nation will know that hatred because of race, creed, colour or religion is not acceptable and that the whole authority of the nation is behind the legislation.


William Skoreyko: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for giving me the opportunity to participate briefly in the debate this afternoon. I have listened to a goodly number of speeches, every one of them expressing something significant about Bill C-3. I want to draw to the attention of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) certain information, certain facts and certain concerns about this bill. As I see it, this bill is being devised as a tool of the government. It will do nothing but suppress news. The people in the press gallery will wonder whether what they report in their papers will contravene the terms of the bill. I remind you, Mr. Speaker, that away back in 1935 the notable premier of Alberta (Mr. Aberhart) introduced legislation that would have served the same purpose as this bill. The title of the bill was different, but its purpose was the same. It was designed to suppress the free expression of opinion by that media. That legislation, passed by the Alberta legislature, was ruled ultra vires by the Supreme Court of Canada.
I do not know what other members think of the talents of our Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) but I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that he gives a great deal of consideration to any legislation, particularly of this type, that may come before this chamber. I am sure he has carefully considered the fact that if he were to bring in a bill to suppress the freedom of the press, it would indeed become involved in legal precedents established by the Supreme Court of Canada. Indeed, it would be at variance with the Bill of Rights and other legal precedents.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
I noticed with interest this afternoon when mention was made of Ron Gostick, who writes for the Central Intelligence Agency, that he was lightly passed off as being of something less than a credible character. This man has written some articles which I am sure are somewhat offensive. If they were written about me, I would feel they were offensive. Articles were written dealing with the history of the Prime Minister of this country and of another individual, Jean-Louis Gagnon, who was recently appointed to a position of some stature. This government has failed to take advantage of existing laws
Hate Propaganda
under the Criminal Code to prevent this type of publication being circulated amongst Canadians. I simply say that even though this government may feel this man is not credible, and that attention should not be paid to him, the fact is there are defamation laws that could prevent this man from writing articles of this kind.
Those Canadians who come in contact with the CIA publications are concerned about what is being written about some of our heads of state. Why the Minister of Justice or indeed the Prime Minister does not initiate proceedings to stop this kind of publication is beyond me. I suggest that the best way to stop it is to pass Bill C-3. It would automatically bring this writer under the terms of that bill and subject him to whatever punishment the court sees fit.
Bill C-3 is not going to prevent hate propaganda. It will not stop it. It may stop the publication of it, but it is not going to stop the verbal expression of hate propaganda. This afternoon the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) eloquently stated that no government, bill or legislation, intended, proposed or otherwise can legislate love, tolerance and compassion. What concerns me, Mr. Speaker, is that the Prime Minister has expressed a very strong view that he would like to see this country headed into a republic, indeed, a presidency. If such is the case, this may be the first step in that direction. This bill will prevent the press from expressing a point of view that might be unacceptable to the government.
Today we are conducting the functions of Parliament somewhere between the British parliamentary system and the system of the United States. If the Prime Minister is advocating a presidency, I do not want a bill passed which will stop the newspapers from reporting his intentions. I wish to know whether we are going to have a presidency like that of the United States or a benevolent dictatorship and, if so, what kind? I do not think it is fair to ask this House to pass a bill that will attempt to do nothing more than stifle the free expression of the press, which may well expose a government that is bent on destroying democracy.
I think this is the opportune time to talk about what has happened to date. We have read viewpoints expressed in the newspapers and have heard them over the radio and on television. We hear points of view expressed every night on the program "Viewpoint" following the national news which at times are.

April 8. 1970
Hate Propaganda
extremely critical of the government, the opposition and indeed sometimes of this institution. I am not sure who is going to interpret the rules under which the free press of this country is going to operate. Recently, with the blessing of the Minister of Justice, the omnibus bill was passed. It has done nothing more than legalize amorality in Canada, homosexuality, indiscriminate abortions and uncontrolled divorces. Now, there is talk about legalizing pot. We are going to bankrupt the middle class of Canadians. We have set up Information Canada and now the government is introducing a hate literature bill which will prevent the press from expressing a clear point of view on all these matters. The government has taken from us the flag, our Military traditions, our respect in international affairs and has taken from the Canadian people then- respect for Parliament. To date, the press has expressed a very strong point of view in this regard.
Under the guise of protecting the minority groups, I fear that Bill C-3 is designed to take from the news media that free expression of opinion. That is my main concern. I ask the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice, who is asking for this bill to be passed? Surely, it is not the French people. It is not the English people. It cannot be the Ukrainians. It is not the Jews. I know people in every one of these social structures of life. The most interesting after dinner speakers at banquets are usually Jewish. They tell more stories about themselves and their race than any other nationality. To suggest that they are the ones who want this bill passed is complete and utter nonsense. Since I am not able to establish who is asking for this bill, I ask the Minister of Justice to give me this information. What action on the part of the Government has prompted this sort of thing? Who is asking for this kind of a measure? Is it what I alluded to earlier, the fear of the government because they have some ulterior motive in mind in so far as the free institution of Parliament is concerned in the intervening years? The only way to accomplish their objective, the prevention of the exposure of their plan, is by legislative action to bring such statements under the terms of the hate literature bill.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
The Minister of Justice knows we cannot legislate compassion, that we cannot legislate tolerance of one ethnic group by another any more than we can legislate tolerance as

between one church group or another or between a man and his neighbour. What will this legislation accomplish, then? I say it will prevent the free expression of opinion in print, and this is what we should be concerned about.


Mr. Philip G. Givens (York West):: I did not
intend to speak on this subject. I took it for granted, naive as I am, that there would oe practically no problem about getting this legislation through Parliament. I guess I was mistaken. I have sat here during the last two days, concerned about this bill, as I have been for the last several years. Although I have heard many theories propounded I must say I have never listened to so much balderdash and tommyrot in my life as I have heard on this particular subject.
It is not just a matter of whether the government can get a bill through this House. It is a matter of how all the Members of Parliament who sit here feel toward this serious and important problem. One hon. member wants to know who has asked for this legislation. I have not made a survey in nine of the provinces of Canada. But I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that wherever I go in metropolitan Toronto hundreds of people ask me time and time again: What is happening to the hate literature bill? Why has it not been passed? Why is it taking so long? Many hon. members seem to be so concerned about the perpetrators of wrong-doing that they fail to express the slightest concern for the victims-those who feel hurt, those who believe they have a right to go to the government and say: Do something to protect us, something to remove the fear and anxiety we feel about this hate literature going through the mails.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Are you a victim?


Philip Gerald Givens: Yes, I was a victim.
I heard one hon. member, the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan), talk about literature which was being sent out attacking a certain race and depicting a swastika. Somebody said: "Who does that hurt?" Well, Mr. Speaker, it would hurt you if you were a member of the particular minority group which felt the sting of the swastika and everything it symbolizes.
Everybody says it is impossible to cure bigotry and hatred by legislation, that an educational process is required. Do hon. members not understand that it is part of the educational process for Members of Parliament to stand up, once and for all, and declare that the dissemination of hatred cannot be con-
April 8, 1970

doned in this country? I cannot understand how it is possible for members of the opposition to talk the way they have been talking. The province of Ontario has enacted this kind of legislation. I have in mind the Fair Employment Practices Act which has proven to be a golden chapter in the history of this country. Its provisions with respect to antidefamation, fair employment practices and the establishment of the Fair Employment Practices Commission have been an example to all the other provinces of Canada.
There are those who say this legislation will not work. If it won't work, what are you worried about? So, it won't work. The time has come for us to do some experimentation in connection with sociological legislation. If those engaged in the field of science and technology were as afraid to experiment, as hon. members are afraid to experiment with this kind of legislation, we would never have put a man on the moon. If this legislation won't work, what are hon. members so afraid of?
When I was mayor of Toronto I used to look forward to Sundays with dread because some kook would go down to the park with a swastika on his arm and a bunch of henchmen. Thousands would be there, one never knew what would happen, yet there was nothing we could do about it because we did not have the legislative power to deal with that kind of situation. We were told we should go to the Parliament of Canada. Now hon. members say legislation is not the solution for everything. It is true that legislation against murder does not prevent murders from being committed; legislation against rape does not save people from rape. Nevertheless we pass laws against these crimes because they constitute anti-social conduct and because decent-minded people are opposed to these practices. If hon. members are opposed to the kind of practices we have been considering in connection with hate literature, they should stand up and vote for this bill.
1 say to the Minister of Justice and to all who are concerned with the operation of the law that I have always felt there was a gap in the law here. If I were to punch another member of this House on the nose and draw blood, my action would constitute a cause for laying a criminal charge; it would constitute a cause for an action in a civil court for assault. But if a person belongs to a minority group, and the kind of conduct about which we have been talking for years and years makes him anxious, fearful for his citizen-
Hate Propaganda
ship, wondering whether his children have a future in this country, he has no redress at all. I say this is wrong. In this day and age we talk a great deal about mental health and emotional disturbance, and we usually confine our attention in this field to children. Unfortunately, there are people who still feel this way when they are no longer children. They are still hurt; they are still scared. When I sat in my office in that great City Hall, people came to me, rolled up their sleeves and showed me the tattoos they had from Auschwitz. I thought they needed some protection from what has been going on. I have visited Auschwitz. I have visited the camps at Bir-kenau and Mydanek. It was not only Jews who were destroyed in those places. Poles, Czechoslovaks, Ukrainians were murdered by the hundreds of thousands. Let us be mindful of this. We are not dealing with Jewish legislation.
I say it will be a disgrace to Parliament and to the country if we fail to pass this bill. We have passed bills protecting homosexuals, and rightly so. We have passed laws dealing with abortion, and rightly so. We have passed laws establishing breathalyzer tests because we were concerned about the hazards created by drunken drivers. We are not asking anybody to set aside $50 million as we did with respect to the Official Languages Act which was brought in to deal-by legislation-with another problem which has arisen in this country. We are asking for no money. If racism were virulent in this country it would be too late to pass this bill. We should pass it now because racism is not rampant in Canada. Then again, if we pass this bill and it proves to be took weak, or too strong, it can always be amended. I notice that 80 per cent of the legislation going through this House constitutes amendments to bills already passed. There is nothing about this measure which would make it unalterable, like the laws of the Medes and Persians. If it has to be changed it can be changed. In the words of Franklin Roosevelt, you have nothing to fear but fear itself.
Maybe hon. members just do not want to vote for this thing. I say they should pass it as a warning by all members of the House of Commons to the bigots and spewers of hate that the Parliament of Canada does not condone this kind of anti-social behaviour.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
If hon. members do condone this sort of thing, of course, then I understand how they are going to vote. But I contend that if we do

April 8, 1970
Hate Propaganda
not pass this bill we will set back brotherhood in this country 100 years. All of the dinners I have attended in connection with brotherhood affairs, at which I have seen Members of Parliament, members of provincial legislatures and members of municipal governments sitting there nodding and ayeing, will stick in my throat if I continue to hear the sort of arguments that have been made at such functions and which are being re-echoed in this House.
Failure to pass the bill will set back the cause of brotherhood, the interfaith movement and the interrelationships between the various minority groups in this country 100 years. Everything we have done in the past to try to eradicate, to remedy, to ameliorate the situation in this country where there are so many minority groups, not simply two founding races, will all have been a hypocritical exercise in futility. I, therefore, plead with the members of the House of Commons, for the reasons I have indicated, please to pass Bill C-3.


Hon. Hugh John Flemming (Carleicn-Char-loite):: Mr. Speaker, the speech to which we have just listened is a very good indication that there is a great deal of difference of opinion between the members of this chamber. It was not my intention to make any extended remarks on the bill. However, I do think there are various aspects of the bill, and the principles that are behind the change that is suggested, that are deserving of more consideration than I think they have received.
In the first place, I think that any amendment to the Criminal Code-and I bring this particularly to the attention of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner)-is in itself of sufficient importance to deserve much attention. Yet I observe that there are only about half a dozen members in evidence today supporting the government, with a few more members over on this side. It appears to me that, in view of the importance of this bill, it could very properly be said that we should have a little better attendance than we have this afternoon.
The previous speaker suggested that the bill is going to remedy the various matters of which he complained. I question whether the bill would have any such result. On the other hand-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Minister of Justice is rising on a point of order.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the hon. member, whom I have known for a long time, but I do not think he would want to leave the impression in the House that this debate has not been a very vigorous one, and throughout most of the time very well attended. This is the third day and perhaps interest is lagging as the debate goes on; but it has been a very well attended debate.


Hugh John Flemming: Mr. Speaker, that interruption was absolutely uncalled for. I said that there were half a dozen members or thereabouts sitting on the opposite side. The minister apparently had to put something on the record to explain to anybody who reads it why there were not more of his members present. He said we have had three days of debate and the opposition kept talking for so long that they wore him out. I expect that will probably be his answer.
My concern about the bill, or part of it at least, is the threat that it poses to freedom of speech. I think it should be possible, within the limits of the truth, for people to express opinions on public platforms across the country. If their opponents suggest that those opinions are not justified, then their opponents have the opportunity to contradict them, or they have the opportunity quickly to propose an alternative opinion. Then, under out democratic system, people have the responsibility, for example in a general election, to decide which view is correct. That is the proper method and is something that we should cherish.
In my opinion, when we place on the statute books a law that might be construed as a restriction on freedom of speech, then we are dealing with a matter that is very vital to the well-being of every citizen of this country.
The previous speaker suggested that this bill would accomplish a great deal. I would question what it is going to accomplish.


Philip Gerald Givens: It is worth trying.


Hugh John Flemming: I do not think we should be experimenting. Before I go further in my rambling remarks, may I suggest that we have had some very illustrious ministers of justice. I hope my hon. friend, the present Minister of Justice, will go down in history as being among those great men; I believe he will. He has a home in my province so he has made a start in that direction as far as residence is concerned. However, neither the right hon. Mr. St. Laurent nor the hon. Mr. Lapointe found any reason to pass such a bill as this.
April 8, 1970

What has happened since the present Minister of Justice has occupied that position to bring about the need for this legislation? The hon. member who just made an eloquent speech mentioned that the Second World War ended in 1945, which is 25 years ago, so it appears nothing has happened recently to bring about the need for this particular bill.


Mr. Brewin:: Would the hon. member
permit a question?


Hugh John Flemming: Yes.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Has he had the advantage of reading the report of the royal commission, of which Dean Cohen was chairman and of which several distinguished members of this House, including the present Prime Minister, were members, which clearly pointed out in detail some vigorous, hateful, anti-Semitic and anti-Negro literature that was deliberately being circulated in this country? Has he had the advantage of reading the report and learning about those facts? If he has, then how does he square that with the remarks that he is now making?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Hugh John Flemming: Not often do my friends opposite applaud remarks that come from the group to my left.


Gérard Loiselle: If they make good sense, we applaud.


Hugh John Flemming: I should like to answer the question posed by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) by saying that it is my understanding that the matters which were complained of originated largely in the United States. This bill will not affect them at all. I would ask the hon. member who has just spoken why the authorities did not do something to ban such literature from the mails? That is the way to control hate literature as far as despatching it by mail is concerned.
The hon. member for York West (Mr. Givens), for whom I have great respect, talked about the city of Toronto. I should like to tell him something about the province of New Brunswick. I have never received so many letters urging me to take the greatest amount of objection to any bill as I have to this one. The people are fearful, they are afraid. They are concerned about what this bill will do to their liberties.


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: More than the white paper?
Hate Propaganda


Hugh John Flemming: The white paper affects people's pockets, but this bill affects their freedom. This may not be important to my hon. friend from St. Boniface, but it is important to a lot of other people, and, as I say, they have expressed concern.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
Let us go back to the amendment to the Criminal Code. This is only my own opinion but I suggest that an amendment to the Criminal Code which involves, after all, the behaviour of individuals, should not be passed by Parliament with less than a two thirds vote. These amendments are beyond ordinary acts of government which call for opposition and criticism. These things affect the lives of every individual. I express that opinion, but I do not expect it will have a great deal of effect because the bill is still before us.
I have strong views about additions to the Criminal Code. If we were dealing with something that was already there and wanted, as my friend who has just spoken suggested, to make a minor change, that would be one thing. But in this regard we are going into a brand new realm of activity so far as the Criminal Code is concerned, so the consequences should be examined very carefully.
I should like to ask the Minister of Justice whether he will explain to this House why these additions are necessary. He has not done that as yet. Has there been any indication of hate propaganda, generally speaking, distributed in Canada in the last few years or since he became the Minister of Justice? I ask him to answer that question.


An hon. Member:: Ask me.


Hugh John Flemming: I will in time. Has there been in the history of Canada, and we have had many distinguished ministers of justice, any indication that there has been a demand for this sort of thing? The minister has not answered that question. Has there been anything in our history that shows that previous Ministers of Justice had such demands made on them for this sort of thing?
We have our law on libel and we have our law on defamation of character. We have various laws. I have always felt that the important thing about what people say about you is not that they say it, but whether or not it is true.


An hon. Member:: Then, let us set up a defence.

April 8. 1970
Hate Propaganda


Hugh John Flemming: I would not say anything that would bother my friend directly opposite. He is a very nice young fellow actually, and I would not say anything against his character, you may be sure. I might differ with him as far as opinion is concerned, but I would not want to be put in jail for that. That would not be the proper thing because he has hardly grown up yet. But I was talking about ministers of justice, and we have had a lot of them. Is there anything on record to indicate that they have been concerned in the past about hate propaganda? We had the distinguished minister of justice from the province of Quebec, Mr. Lapointe. Is there anything on record that indicates this second in command under Mackenzie King for many years was concerned about hate propaganda in his province? In so far as I am concerned, the answer is no.
Did the ex-premier of Manitoba who was the minister of justice here for a good many years, the hon. Mr. Garson, leave anything on the record that suggests he was besieged by people worrying about hate propaganda? I suggest there is none at all. Did the hon. Mr. Fulton find anything of this kind when he was the Minister of Justice? Certainly there was nothing of which we know. Do we have anything on record to indicate that the Hon. Donald Fleming, who came from the city of Toronto, was worried when he was Minister of Justice about this problem? He apparently was not subjected to the same complaints the speaker before me referred to when he was the Minister of Justice. At least we heard no talk about this?
Did the hon. Mr. Favreau, when he was the Minister of Justice-he was a very fine and distinguished gentleman-find anything of this kind in so far as Quebec was concerned? We are not aware of anything. What conclusion can we come to? We can only come to the conclusion that something has happened recently that brought about this need. I do not believe the demand for this bill emanated under the present Minister of Justice.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Hugh John Flemming: Will he answer the questions? We have the right to know the
answers.
The only thing that makes me feel reasonably satisfied and reasonably content about this matter is the knowledge that no action can be instituted without the consent of the Attorney General. At the present time that is a safeguard in my opinion, because I have

knowledge of the character of the man who occupies that position. However, I do not know who is going to occupy it a year or two years from now.


John Napier Turner: It is the provincial Attorneys General.


Hugh John Flemming: It is the provincial Attorneys General. Then, I take back everything I have said about being content. I am not content any more because if the Minister of Justice is not going to occupy that position he will not have anything to do with it.
On one occasion when I was in London, England, I went into Hyde Park. People were standing on boxes there criticizing everything the government was doing. They were criticizing royalty and the royal family. They were having a field day and a great time. As far as the government of the United Kingdom is concerned, this is perfectly all right and in order. We should learn something from this because that is an old, established society over there which has enjoyed Parliamentary government for a long time. Apparently the people in the United Kingdom are encouraged to get these things off their chests by talking about them. Having talked about them, they feel a lot better and perhaps do not do so much. In any event, that seems to be the general idea behind it.
Freedom of speech is one of the four things that those gentlemen decided were precious when they met off the Atlantic coast during World War II. They were the things that people fought for and in some cases died for. In view of that, I am alarmed and tremendously concerned about anything that interferes with the personal liberty of people to criticize. I expect they might even criticize me, and I certainly give them the right to do so. I also demand the right to answer. Then, I would be quite prepared to have somebody else judge which of us is correct.
I assume that we should understand from the fact that no action can be taken, that the Attorney General of a province may grant or refuse his consent. How could an Attorney General refuse consent? After a complaint is lodged he has to investigate the situation. If we look at proposed Section 267BC3) we find that there are certain ways a man can justify anything he says. What does this all add up to? According to the hon. member who spoke before me this will mean that these people will not get the advantages, benefits and improvements he has suggested.
April 8, 1970

[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
I suggest that you cannot legislate love and you cannot eliminate hate by legislation. This is something which must come as a result of the ordinary process of tolerance and association. I had a reasonable amount of experience in a province which has different races of people. There are certainly different ethnic groups. In the business with which I am associated we found nothing of any consequence in the way of differentiation between races and people. I do not think this exists to a very great extent, at least in my part of the world.
However, I am alarmed and concerned. I propose to support the amendment of my hon. friend from Calgary North and to vote against this bill. I shall do this because I am fearful of the effect it will have on freedom of speech, one of our most cherished liberties.
I have referred in this House before to a quotation from one of Shakespeare's plays, I believe Julius Caesar. One of the principals said, "How oft the sight of means to do ill deeds make deeds ill done". So, we have something here and it is said it is a great thing to have it because it will have a deterrent effect. I submit that it will not be a deterrent. The deterrence will be in respect of the person who wishes to express an opinion but is worried by a fear of the consequences.
In concluding these remarks may I say that this bill undoubtedly will pass. It is sponsored by the Minister of Justice. I wish he were not the sponsor, but he is so it will go through. I would hope he would recognize the principle that forbearance and tolerance cannot be legislated. So far as I am concerned, the difficulty and the danger in respect of this whole bill is that it may be a deterrent to individual freedom of speech and liberty.


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few comments on this particular bill because it brings into conflict two civil rights issues, the rights of minority groups as against the right of free speech. If we support the bill, then we say that recognition of the problems of minority groups has superiority over the right of free speech 'at this time. What makes the situation more difficult is, as has been so well pointed out by previous speakers, that this is a bad bill. The fact is that this provision of the Criminal Code in my opinion will be quite ineffective. I accept the theory that the bill will be useless in preventing the dissemination of hatred and if it is pursued vigorously
Hate Propaganda
will limit the right of free speech in this country. I think it would have been far better had this bill, in its present terms, not been introduced at all. The fact is, however, that the bill has been introduced and brought before Parliament and the people of Canada for their consideration.
Last night I listened very carefully to my colleague from Hamilton West to whom the attitude in respect of this bill is very simple. Does Parliament respond sympathetically to a bill, however weak, which recognizes that minority groups have problems? To him the vote on this bill will reflect our views on the question of the protection of minority groups. In other words, the question simply is, are we for or against the rights of minorities in Canada? This is the simple manner in which I feel I must vote on this bill. This bill having been brought before us I have no alternative but to support my friend from Hamilton West. My legal training, as must his, leaves me really concerned about the limitation of free speech, the possibility of witch hunts under the provisions and aegis of this bill and so on.
This bill, as are so many others which we are now considering, in typically Liberal fashion is vague, uncertain and hard to define or enforce. We have before us in this House several similar bills. I think of the Canada Water Act as one which is meaningless in respect of any effort to enforce it. I believe this bill to be in the same category. It is a grand expression of intent and a grand expression of an ideal without any way of ever enforcing it. No specific terms of enforcement are included in it. The provision which would leave to the Attorney General the responsibility of defining at what time or under what circumstances a charge could be laid leaves the enforcement of the bill wide open. No one will be in a position at one time or another to know whether he may or may not be subject to the provisions of this bill or whether he may or may not be prosecuted. I think this bill is a tragic example of the sloppy, vague and ineffective pieces of legislation we have had placed before us. On balance, however, I think, when we vote on the bill, whether it is a good bill or a bad one, we will be expressing whether or not we have sympathy for the problems of minority groups in Canada.
I must say I am convinced that the answer of this Parliament must be in the affirmative. If this were the only bad piece of legislation we have or have had before us I might be

April 8. 1970
Hate Propaganda
persuaded to vote against it. Unfortunately, time after time we are placed in the position of having to decide how we shall vote on bills which have a good expression of intent but which have nothing in them. I shall vote on this from the standpoint of an expression of intent and therefore I feel I cannot support the amendment.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to speak at this stage of our consideration of this bill, but I think I must indicate my thinking at the present time in order to show what I intend to do in respect of the amendment and the bill. I find, along with many of my colleagues-and this has also been expressed by some members on the other side-that this bill is a compendium of good intentions and sloppy thinking. The way it is drafted means that an attempt is being made to put on the statute books a measure that potentially could be a legal monster, a sort of Frankenstein. Why? Because it has been amply demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that this bill, which on the face of it can be called just law, can be used for unjust purposes. As has been pointed out by my colleagues, most of the persecutions by government that have been known have utilized laws justly passed, but the people were persecuted thereunder in their application. This bill is of that genus.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
Let us take, for example, a group such as the Hutterites in my province. They are a troubled people under constraint from society. However, they are a peaceful people. But I can imagine circumstances whereby, if the populace were not as enlightened or if the government should move under the powers given to it in existing legislation on the statute books of the province of Alberta, for instance, and if the Hutterites were to take overt action in protesting against the treatment they would be getting, an attorney general could then move under the terms of the act that is presently before the House to put them down further. Then, we would say: where are the rights of minorities? Legislation inscribed by the Parliament of Canada has been used to put down the minority.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: This is not what we want. There is already in existence on the statute books legislation which achieves the main purpose of this bill. If our statute books were void of anything that 
would protect minorities, then I would say there may be a case for this legislation. There, I disagree with my colleague, the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken) because I do not feel a compulsion to have this legislation on the statute books. The bill before us is a sort of embellishment of laws we already have, but to me therein lies the danger. I would hate to think that those minorities which seek the protection they feel this legislation will give them should become the victims of that legislation in later years under some unscrupulous government or individual in that government.
It is for that reason-and it is a short reason-that I want to support the amendment of my colleague, the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams). I fully understand the position of my good friend, the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander). I wish I could take him for a walk.


Mr. Alexander:: I wish I could take you for a walk.


Mr. Mahoney:: Which of the two stays with the script?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: That is a secret between the two of us. This position I can understand. But there are others who form a religious minority and there are those who are a political minority, yet why must any particular minority feel that it is aggrieved if this bill is not passed? I say that already we provide protection of minorities in this country. If we provided no such protection would our history be as it has been, and would it be different from those countries where minorities were persecuted? But minorities have not been persecuted here. The so-called documentation that was used as the foundation of some of the evidence-and some of it was pretty thin-for the Cohen report on this matter came from outside this country. I do not think that there was one iota of truth in the suggestion that the need for such legislation had its origin in this country. Why? Are we setting up an Aunt Sally? Are these to be straw men that we are legislating against? I do not think one should have to go through this process because someone suspects there might be a need for such legislation. I would say again that the inherent danger for minorities in this bill is far greater than the danger from which it purports to protect. This is all the more reason for supporting my colleague, the hon. member for Calgary North because legislation to
April 8, 1970

achieve the goal which all of us have, to protect minorities, already exists on our statute books.


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


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: In my
opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Pursuant to section 11 of Standing Order 75, a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next motion is that of the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin).
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)


Francis Andrew Brewin: That Bill C-3, an act to amend the Criminal Code, be amended by adding to section 267B thereof the following subsection:
If any person is charged with an offence against subsection (2) of this section, then the court may, if a breach of the subsection has been committed by the person charged or is reasonably to be anticipated, make an order in lieu of or in addition to the penalty set out in subsection (2) requiring such person to cease and desist from proceeding with or continuing or making any communication prohibited by the act and the order so made may be enforced as if it were made by the superior court of any province.
and that the following subsections of section 267B be renumbered accordingly.
He said: Mr. Speaker, on the last amendment we have had a very full and excellent debate with many high spots.
The amendment I propose is of a very different character to the one which has just been debated and dealt with. It is designed to strengthen the bill, to give greater remedies and more flexible penalties. Members who have followed this debate know that I have supported the principle and the spirit of the legislation and that in my view it is not such as to warrant the fears that have been
Hate Propaganda
expressed for it. The offences are defined in precise and clear language and it adds ample defences to appeal to those who may be fearful of its misapplication.
I support the bill, Mr. Speaker, but I do not feel any need to apologize for saying that it can be strengthened and improved by the amendment which I propose. This amendment deals with the appropriate remedy or penalty as applied to section 267B(2), the section which deals with the communication of statements which wilfully promote hatred. The proposal is that the penalty provided of liability to imprisonment for two years or punishment on summary conviction, in addition to which there may be a fine or a term of imprisonment, be replaced or enlarged by the right of the court dealing with the matter to make a cease and desist order; in other words, to enjoin the continuation of the offence.
Remedies are extremely important, Mr. Speaker. All sorts of legislation is rendered ineffective-and we are told this would be ineffective-because the penalty is either too severe or is inadequate. I suggest that if a person is found guilty of this offence it should be open to the courts to say, "We will not brand you as a criminal, will not send you to jail, not even fine you but will obtain from you an undertaking not to repeat the offence or, if you are unwilling to give that undertaking, we will make an order that you shall not repeat the offence." This is far more drastic and yet far more flexible and, in the end, a more effective way of dealing with this type of offence. It means that if a court comes to the conclusion that the offence was committed out of ignorance it could say, "go and sin no more". If it was committed by someone who did not realize the enormity or error of his action, he could be told to go away and not repeat the offence, without being branded as a criminal and subjected to criminal penalty.
I suggest this would remove some of the sting from the legislation for those who fear its application in too strict a sense. On the other hand, where there is deliberate propagation of material designed and calculated to arouse hatred there could be a warning that it must not be repeated. Then, if it were repeated the full power of prison for contempt should be used where there is a deliberate repetition of the offence.
In all legislatures, Mr. Speaker, it is a common practice to make laws and then forget about the extremely important matter of their enforcement. It is my submission that

April 8, 1970
Hate Propaganda
the additional remedies I suggest will make for a more flexible, less rigid, more fairmind-ed and reasonable enforcement of this legislation which I believe we are going to approve when the occasion arises.
I therefore commend this amendment to the House not because I think the legislation should be weakened but because I think it should be strengthened and I believe it would be strengthened if the courts had this power. At this stage of the debate I do not propose to go into this matter of law or argue the constitutionality of it. I do not propose to detain the House to argue on the legal implications of a cease and desist order or the proposals which I make. I merely say that this particular method of proceeding has been found suitable in provincial legislation regarding racial discrimination. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I urge the House to support the amendment.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I commend the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) for his ingenuity in trying to develop ways and means to deal with offenders under this act without actually invoking the punitive sanctions. There is some precedent for this under the Restrictive Trade Practices Act and in the anti-combines legislation there is provision for it.
I should like to point out, however, why I cannot support it. We could probably use existing provisions in the Criminal Code which, with very slight alterations, could be adapted to deal with the problem he has in mind. Reading again from his own amendment:
If any person is charged with an offence against subsection (2) of this section, then the court may, if a breach of the subsection has been committed by the person charged or is reasonably to be anticipated, make an order in lieu of or in addition to the penalty set out in subsection (2) requiring such person to cease and desist-
It is my proposition that we could make use of such sections of the Criminal Code as 717, 718 and 637, dealing with entering into a recognizance to keep the peace, which are simpler, far more expeditious and far more salutary in effect. If the conditions imposed in the recognizance were for a substantial amount it would have the benefit that those entering into recognizance for the person charged would have some pecuniary interest in insuring that there would be no repetition of the offence.
Now, I have only looked at these sections of the Criminal Code very briefly and we may well have to amend them. I do not believe in

having new and unnecessary laws-we have too many already, including this. I think, however, that we can make use of existing legislation to cover the situation where an offence has been committed and in order to deter repetition of that offence some order of a court is required. It may be that we would require a recognizance of this kind to be taken before a magistrate or a county court judge, but I would prefer that to what the hon. member has proposed in his amendment. This could result in a very difficult, complex and probably more expensive procedure and for that reason I propose to vote against the amendment. In addition, there are other proceedings to cover the situation.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, may I just say a few words about the amendment of the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin). May I refer to proposed new section 267c.(l). It reads:
A Judge who is satisfied by information upon
oath-*
That clearly means an affidavit, and is something we should take a look at. I continue:
-that there are reasonable grounds for believing that any publication, copies of which are kept for sale or distribution in premises within the jurisdiction of the court, is hate propaganda-
I am not so sure that the consent of thb Attorney-General is required in that regard. I do not think so. I continue:
-shall issue a warrant under his hand authorizing seizure of the copies.
Really, what will happen is this: Someone will swear out an affidavit that he has reasonable grounds for believing that whatever is in a package is hate literature, according to the formula of this bill we have been discussing for two or three days. I will not go again into arguments I raised before. This proposed section would give anyone the right to swear out an affidavit saying that he has reasonable grounds for believing that the material in the package should be seized. Of course it may turn out, as a result of a hearing, that the contents of the package do not come within the provisions of this bill. Would it not be strange if, during an election campaign, I were to swear an affidavit that the literature of the Minister of Justice, literature in a package, fell within the ambit of this Bill? Of course, anybody could swear out an affidavit
April 8, 1970

Hate Propaganda
that he has reasonable grounds for believing ment of the hon. member, to consider particuthat that kind of literature attempts to influence people.
Speaking seriously, though, this proposed section would confer tremendous powers. Almost anyone would have the right to swear to an affidavit, as a result of which material could be seized. I ask a very simple question. How are we to consider some of the books in our libraries? What about some of the books in the libraries of Canada? Is this the beginning of a new age? Is this the beginning of an age in which books will be taken out of our libraries because they may be read by speakers on a platform who would thus communicate, within the meaning of this bill, certain statements contained in those books to the people? As the hon. member for Peace River said yesterday, some of Shakespeare's plays may be affected. We need not mention their names. Somebody could swear out an affidavit saying that he has reasonable grounds for believing certain of those plays constitute hate literature.


Gerald William Baldwin: Or, take Oliver Twist.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Yes. This provision could apply to Oliver Twist. The provisions of this bill will only enlarge the libraries of the court houses, or the number of books in the offices of court clerks. I suggest this shows how ridiculous this bill really is.


An hon. Member:: It is a straw man.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Someone said it is a straw man. But is it not ridiculous? And it is not serious when you try to curtail free speech and free thoughts which flow from books that may be in the libraries of Canada? To carry this thought a little farther, did not dictators burn books in order to curtail free speech and free thought? When free thought and free speech disappeared, you all know what disappeared with them: the people were put in the dungeons. They disappeared. I know that the members of minorities are worked up about this bill, but I say this bill will not work in favour of minorities. It did not take Hitler very long, after he became chancellor, to burn down the Reichstag and blame the fire on the communists or tear up statutes which stood in his way and incarcerate people who were protected by them in concentration camps.
I see no difference between a concentration camp in Siberia or in Germany. This proposed section is very dangerous, and I ask all hon. members, when voting on the amendlarly the wording of proposed new section 267c(2) which reads in part:
Within seven days of the issue of the warrant, the judge shall issue a summons to the occupier of the premises requiring him to appear before the court-
Within seven clays of the issue of the warrant you are to appear before the court. But, Mr. Speaker, in seven days a lot of harm can be done. That shows just how ridiculous this bill is. Not only is it ridiculous, but it is dangerous as well. We do not want a police state in Canada. Freedom will not result from it. I am glad I have taken the position I have expounded, and my conscience is easy. I respect the arguments that have been made on behalf of minority groups; I know how minority groups feel about these matters, but I am confident if they think this through they will see I am right.
Somebody in this debate used the expression "The dignity of the individual must rest on the freedom of speech." There is no dignity where there is no free speech and free thought. There is no free speech in the concentration camp, and there is no dignity. It just disappears where there is no free speech or free thought. Under this bill a man can swear out an affidavit of complaint, after which he has seven days to pick books out of Canada's libraries.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Shall I put the question on Motion No. 3?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: those in favour of this motion will please say, yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: In my
opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Call in the members.


Gerald William Baldwin: One moment, Mr. Speaker.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, there have been some discussions and I think there might be general agreement to this

April 8, 1970
Business of the House effect: that the division, rather than being taken at this point today, be taken tomorrow immediately after the Orders of the Day are called. I wonder if perhaps we could make a special order of the house on those terms. It would be to this effect: that the division would not be taken this evening but that the two deferred divisions be taken immediately after the Orders of the Day are called tomorrow, and that third reading should commence immediately thereafter during tomorrow's sitting. If there is general agreement to that effect, perhaps that could be made an order of the house.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, may I say a
word with regard to the business for tomorrow? In view of the order just made and since there is some prospect of making progress with the bill tomorrow, I should like to indicate that there will be a change in business and that we will not call the budget debate as previously announced. We will call first, Bill C-3, the bill presently under discussion, to be followed by the bill respecting the International Development Research Centre amendments involving the House approval of the Senate amendments, to be followed by second reading of the bill with reference to the Canada Grains Act.


Gerald William Baldwin: What is after that?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: We will take the National Farm Products Act, the Standards Council bill and-


Gerald William Baldwin: Six o'clock, Mr. Speaker.
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.

Thursday, April 9, 1970