1970-04-07

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I am taking the first opportunity to fulfil my earlier undertaking to table the exchange of correspondence between the Department of Transport and the Humble Oil Company relative to the voyage of the Manhattan.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Transport concerning the manufacture and importation of automobiles and the matter of pollution about which there is great concern because of health and other reasons. Is it the intention of the government to establish standards governing pollutants emanating from automobiles and, if so, will this be done at an early date?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, the highway safety bill which was given royal assent on the last day before adjournment gives us the authority to set standards for automobile exhaust systems. These standards are now being drawn up and it is our hope that the necessary hearings will have been held in time for the systems to be installed on automobiles for the current year, that is, the 1971 models.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will these regulations be substantially the same as those that are evidently being promulgated or prepared in the United States?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I am afraid I am not in a position to answer that technical question specifically, Mr. Speaker. We will draw up the best standards, taking into account all studies that have been undertaken both in the United States and Canada, and I shall be glad to make the facts known as soon as the standards have been drawn.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A further supplementary question. Is it intended to impose these standards upon all imported automobiles as well as those manufactured within the terms of the automobile agreement?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The highway safety bill provides that the same standards will apply not only to automobiles manufactured in Canada but to those imported from anywhere in the world.


Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfoot):: I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Transport. Is any research being done in Canada into the concept of removing the lead component from gasoline and substituting a gasoline derived from grain, which would greatly reduce pollution? This is being seriously studied in the United States. Is Canada doing any research in this connection inasmuch as, if successful, it would greatly reduce the pollution from automobiles?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that type of research is going on and we have a full exchange of information with the counterpart agency in the United States.



HIGHWAY SAFETY


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to' ask the Minister of Transport whether research is being conducted into the question of what additional safety measures ought to be imposed with regard to automobiles operating under our climatic conditions? Is the minister simply following the research and the standards being established in the United States or is serious research being done in order to relate our standards to our conditions, particularly with regard to winter driving?
April 7, 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, there is
research with regard to winter driving and an effort is under way now to determine if it is feasible for us to introduce special safety standards having to do with such things as rear window defrosting.


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Has-tings):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the statement made yesterday in Montreal by Mr. Ralph Nader, the highly respected American critic of auto safety, that American cars stand up better in accident testing than Canadian-made automobiles, will the minister look into that in order to see to it that Canadian cars are built with all the safety factors they should have?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I am at a loss to understand the question since many of the so-called United States-made automobiles driven in the United States which appear to be safer are actually made in Canada.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg Norih Centre):: And
they are a lot cheaper there than they are here.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs may I direct my question either to the Prime Minister or to the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs. Word has just come over the radio that the United States government has authorized the transportation of large quantities of nerve gas from Okinawa to Oregon via the Strait of Juan de Fuca and Bangor, Washington. I have raised this matter several times in the House with the Secretary of State for External Affairs and asked him to look into it and urge the United States government to detoxicize this material before it is transported. Can he give us any information, first of all, whether the shipments are actually to take place and whether any steps are being taken to safeguard Canadian waters in the event of a mishap during this transportation process?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member might consider asking his question tomorrow when the Secretary of State for External Affairs will be answering questions.
CMr. Stanfield.]


An hon. Member:: When will someone
answer on behalf of the Department of Agriculture?


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I did not know that we now have selective answering. This is a matter of deep concern. Is the Prime Minister aware whether the Canadian government made representations to the United States government with reference to this 8,000 or
10,000	tons of lethal gas? Did the Canadian government consent to the shipment of this gas which is greatly feared by the people of British Columbia adjacent to the strait? Did the Canadian government consent to this movement, because some months ago it was said that before shipments were made Canada would have to consent?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the right hon. gentleman's question deals with the same subject as the previous question; therefore my answer remains the same.


John George Diefenbaker: Does the Prime Minister not know what is going on internationally? The answer is no.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, this question goes beyond the scope of the Department of External Affairs. This is a matter which could possibly involve the safety and welfare of people on the Pacific coast. I was not directing my question solely to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I ask the Prime Minister if he, as the head of the government of this country, has any information regarding this matter. Have any representations been made or are any going to be made by the government of Canada to make sure that Canadian safety will be kept in mind during the period of transportation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am trying to convey to the opposition that this is not a one-man government and that there are other ministers in it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: Why does the Prime Minister not practise what he preaches.


Mr. Baldwin:: It is no government.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: It is a one-man government.


An hon. Member:: You mean, it is a one-man opposition.


Mr. Speaker:: May we have order, please.
April 7, 1970	COMMONS



NATIONAL SECURITY


Mr. Real Caouelie (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister.
This afternoon I received from a citizen of Sherbrooke a copy of a small magazine L'Estrien Rouge which is supposed to be the organ of the Sherbrooke student movement. This newspaper which is obviously communist calls traitors the members for Papineau and Sherbrooke (Messrs. Ouellet and Gervais) and I quote the following excerpt:
The attitude of the traitors Ouellet and Gervais, representatives of colonialists, shows that only the power of the people could drive them out of Quebec.
Consequently, I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the existence of that magazine. In addition, is the RCMP investigating its distribution in Sherbrooke and elsewhere, because it is a clear case of subversion, and is the Prime Minister able to indicate whether measures are taken to ban the distribution of the magazine in the province of Quebec?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, to the first part of the question,
I must answer that since, unfortunately, I do not have the time to read the excellent magazines that are published in the country,
I cannot pay any attention to such cheap literature.
I cannot answer the second part of the question. I shall get in touch with the Solicitor General and if an investigation on that kind of publication is really necessary, I am sure he will be glad to report to the member.



POST OFFICE


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the President of the Treasury Board. I am surprised he did not make a statement on motions today about the Montreal postal issue. I understand he did issue a press release. Can the minister advise if he has now found a solution to the long-standing Montreal postal dispute and, if so, what is it?
DEBATES	5569
Inquiries of the Ministry Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board): Mr. Speaker, a very generous offer was made by the government to the representatives of the employees of G. Lapalme-


Robert Lorne Stanfield: What offer is that?


Mr. Drury:: -last night. It was to be communicated to them this morning and I understand was so communicated. The representatives of the men said that they would provide me with an official reply to this offer. I do not expect to receive this until a meeting later this afternoon.



INDUSTRY


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary Cenire):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the difficulties and uncertainties which exist in the Canadian textile industry, can the minister inform the House when he will make his promised policy statement with regard to that industry?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: As soon as I can, Mr. Speaker.


Douglas Scott Harkness: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister be a bit more specific in view of the great anxiety which exists among the people in this industry?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I wish I could, Mr. Speaker, but I cannot. In the meantime I have been meeting with all the interested parties. I hope the solution I will recommend will meet with the co-operation and approval of everyone concerned.


Mr. Louis-Roland Comeau (South Western Nova):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister personally, not members of his department, meeting with the ministers of the provinces and when does he expect these discussions will be terminated?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I have met with some but not with all because I could not. If necessary, I will meet the others in the near future.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. On
Inquiries of the Ministry several occasions before the Easter adjournment the Prime Minister informed the House that either immediately before the adjournment or immediately after resumption of sittings of the House he would make a general statement with regard to the government's policy on foreign ownership. When may we expect that statement?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: With all respect to the hon. member, Mr. Speaker, I am quite certain I made no such assertion. I did say that the matter was under consideration by cabinet and that it might be some time before we could make such a statement.


David Lewis: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Aside from our difference as to what the Prime Minister said-we both have to look up the record-I ask the Prime Minister whether the minister responsible for studying the matter and presenting recommendations to the cabinet has done so? I am not asking what the recommendations are. Is the cabinet now studying these recommendations and when may the House expect a statement of the government's policy on the issue?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I believe that at no time did I indicate what minister was making this study, Mr. Speaker, but I can answer the hon. member for his information that the matter has come before cabinet and has been studied. A considerable degree of further study will be needed before a statement can be made.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the Prime Minister if he is aware of a report that a Canadian funeral complex has taken over half a dozen-an American funeral complex has taken over-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Woolliams:: That's the Canadian
government.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Maybe I had better start over again and get it right. In view of the report that an American funeral complex-


An hon. Member:: It won't be long, Stan!


Stanley Howard Knowles: see the President of the Privy Council is giving an answer to the Prime Minister before I have even asked the question. In view of the report that an American funeral 
April 7, 1970
complex has taken over half a dozen Canadian funeral homes, will the government look into this matter and make sure that two years from now there will still be a Canadian funeral home when the time comes to bury this government?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Real  Cacuelie@Temiscamingue: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a supplementary question to the Prime Minister who has just announced that the cabinet is at the present time considering the matter of Canadian ownership of Canada's development.
Will the cabinet examine at the same time the reason for a $50 million loan secured in the United States by the NDP government of Manitoba for the development of the Manitoba Hydro Electric Commission?



TRANSPORT


Mr. Charles H. Thomas (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, I would direct my question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that freight rates in Atlantic Canada have been increased by as much as 28 per cent in the last six months, would the minister ask the CNR to roll back that part of the increase which went into effect yesterday?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I have answered a similar question on a number of occasions. As far as freight rate increases are concerned, this is a matter which is being studied by the Prices and Incomes Commission. It is in relation to their guidelines that it is being done.


Charles Humbert Thomas: I have asked the minister several times in the House about the deliberations of the federal-provincial committee which was to have produced recommendations for a comprehensive policy. I know the committee has made some recommendations, and I would ask the minister whether he would press the chairman of the committee to make a report on what has been done so far, so that we might be in a position to forestall further increases.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, I shall be glad to do what X can in that direction and I hope the hon. member, to the extent he has influence

April 7, 1970	COMMONS
in New Brunswick, will press the provincial members of the committee to get on with it, too.


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: With reference to the telegram sent by the Atlantic Provinces Transportation Commission on March 26 protesting these increases, and to the minister's undertaking to use his influence in an effort to secure an early report from the federal-provincial committee, may I ask the hon. gentleman whether he will apply similar pressure to the chairman of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications with a view to the federal-provincial committee being called before the transport committee so that its members can find out just what is causing the hold-up in enunciating the policy for Atlantic transportation which the minister promised almost a year ago?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: The committee is, of course, in charge of its own deliberations, but I would be more than pleased if such a course were followed. I would have no objection to their doing so.



INVESTIGATION OF CNR OPERATIONS IN EASTERN CANADA

['I will take this question as notice, Mr. Speaker.']
Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingaie):: Can the minister tell us when the department is likely to be in a position to reach a decision on the request for an investigation into the operations of the Canadian National in Eastern Canada, a request which was made three months ago and repeated in the House on three subsequent occasions?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: As far as a general line of inquiry is concerned, I am assuming that the transport committee will be hearing the officials of the Canadian National within a little while. I recall replying previously to the effect that an appropriate time would perhaps be whenever the vice-president for the Atlantic region was appearing before the committee. If that does not appeal to the committee I could arrange for another kind of meeting whenever they wished.


John Howard Lundrigan: In view of the evidence which has been presented to the minister in connection with negligence surrounding the particular operation referred to, would the hon. gentleman be prepared to make a statement on motions in the House, bearing in mind that the committee has encountered considerable difficulty in getting at the root of the problem when hearing from CNR officials?
DEBATES	5571
Inquiries of the Ministry


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I would be glad to consider that. I come back to the point I made earlier:
I believe the committee would have a good opportunity when the CNR officials are in attendance. If the hon. member wishes specific officials to appear, I would be glad to try to get the CNR to agree to it.



Mr. Barry Maiher (Surrey):: Mr. Speaker, I had a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs, but in his absence, and in view of the considerable concern felt in British Columbia over the matter, perhaps somebody across the way could take it as notice. Having in mind the fact that the United States government has now definitely scheduled the date of its major underground nuclear test in the north Pacific, when can we expect a statement by the government in relation to the representations that it is making to Washington on this important matter?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council):: I will take this question as notice, Mr. Speaker.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of a letter submitted to him about a month ago by the National Farmers Union, in which they made an accounting of the amount of money that they allege is owing to farmers to fulfil a commitment given in writing by a former Minister of Agriculture, a commitment amounting to some $385 million, may I ask the Prime Minister whether or not he has replied to this submission and, if so, what the reply consisted of?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will have to check. I do recall a letter and it seemed a very fanciful bit of accounting to me.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: A supplementary question. In view of the fact that the submission quotes commitments given by a former Minister of Agriculture, may I ask the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of the government to give sympathetic consideration to honouring those commitments?
April 7, 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, since the Minister of Agriculture is away, I shall direct my question to his Parliamentary Secretary.
In a release issued by the federal Department of Agriculture, it is stated that the board of directors of the World Food Programme will be holding study sessions in New York this week. Now, since Canada is a member of that board, could the Parliamentary Secretary tell the House whether the Canadian contribution to this organization will consist mainly of food and whether the minister will recommend that Canadian dairy products account for a large percentage of the contribution?


Mr. Florian Cote (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Last fall, Mr. Speaker, during a trip to Rome, I had the opportunity of attending a meeting which was a sort of preliminary to the one now taking place in New York. I can say that Canada is the second country to provide major assistance to underdeveloped countries. Canada has offered all kinds of foodstuffs.
However, the choice of foodstuffs is made by a special committee comprising representatives of all member countries. Canada will not itself determine its contribution. The delegates of all countries that are members of the organization will decide which countries will contribute and also what foodstuffs will be offered to underdeveloped countries.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
As Canada is represented within this committee, would it not be better, even if the decision is not that of Canada alone, for us to decide what we would prefer to offer to underdeveloped countries?


Florian Côté: Yes, Mr. Speaker. [English]




Mr. H. E. Stafford (Elgin):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare but in his absence I will 
direct it to his Parliamentary Secretary. How does the minister reconcile the recently announced government grants to help establish tobacco farms on Prince Edward Island with his strong anti-smoking campaign?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Harold Edwin Stafford: Ten o'clock.



EFFECT OF WHITE PAPER DEPLETION ALLOWANCE PROPOSAL ON IRON ORE AND OTHER EXPORTS

George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Since two very large and important long-term contracts to supply iron ore to Japan will be made uncompetitive if the government's white paper proposal to do away with depletion allowances is carried forward-and these contracts are in jeopardy at the present time-is the minister aware of any other suppliers of Canadian materials who are in a similar position?


Some hon. Members:: Answer!


Mr. Speaker:: The right hon. member for Prince Albert.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I asked the minister whether he is aware. He must be aware of something. I know it is not much, but is he or is he not aware?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


George Harris Hees: Get on your feet and speak like a man.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Chair has recognized the right hon. member for Prince Albert.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development whether he will tell the House what the present position is in view of the collaborations that have been going on between representatives of this government and of the government of Quebec concerning Eskimo rights in northern Quebec?
April 7, 1970	COMMONS

Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development)-: Mr. Speaker, as I have said several times in the House, an official of my department and an official of the provincial government have visited every Eskimo community in New Quebec. They are back and now in the process of translating the minutes of the proceedings of those meetings. The government's position has not changed: we are endeavoring to find all the co-operation possible so as to give Quebec Eskimos the services most likely to protect their interests.


John George Diefenbaker: I have a supplementary question. As a result of the discussions that have taken place and the notes that have been taken of those discussions, has the minister now ascertained that there is almost universal opposition by the Eskimos to being pushed around and placed under the custody of the Quebec government rather than remaining under the control of the federal parliament?


Mr. Chretien:: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the Eskimos are satisfied that we are ensuring that their basic rights with regard to their language and their religion will be protected in all parts of Canada, including Quebec, and I think that the right hon. member should support my campaign to have the basic rights of a minority in Quebec recognized.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: Apparently that answer demands the support of the sycophants of the government. I ask the minister this question. Will he table the arrangements made in respect of language and religion which he says the government of Canada supports? Will he table those and will he also table, so we can understand whether or not the Eskimos are as dissatisfied as they claim to be, a copy of the discussions that have taken place and which were taken down by a reporter?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, if we sign an agreement with the government of the province of Quebec, I shall be pleased to so inform the House and to table the document here.
As for the minutes of the meeting, they are now being drafted and will later be trans-
DEBATES	5573
Inquiries of the Ministry lated into English and French. They will then be checked by translators, in this case a Protestant minister and a Catholic priest who speak the Eskimo language. The reports, when submitted to us, will serve as a basis for whatever new policy is adopted, which will be communicated to the House.


John George Diefenbaker: Treatment of Eskimos.



TRANSPORT


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the Minister of Transport. In view of the minister's announced close and friendly relations with the owners of the Humble Oil Company, can he say why Canadian news media correspondents are not being allowed aboard the Manhattan during her voyage through the Canadian Arctic?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the question should properly be directed, I suppose, to the Humble Oil Company with which I do not have any particular affinity, let me assure the House. I do understand, however, that the reason is that the Humble Oil Company declined to allow any United States correspondents to go on this particular voyage of the Manhattan. Therefore they felt it might apear to be a form of discrimination if in fact they allowed Canadian newsmen. Arrangements have been made now, I understand, for Mr. Haas, who is the project officer on the Manhattan, to give periodic briefings on board the St. Laurent for the newsmen who are making the trip, and perhaps at some point in the future they may be able to get on the Manhattan.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Is the gentleman-I did not quite get his name, Your Honour-to whom there was reference and who is going to give these briefings, a representative of Information Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, again-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Gerald William Baldwin: I have a supplementary.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is to the Minister of Transport, and it is a very simple
April 7, 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry question. In the event of any dispute arising between the command of the Manhattan and the command of the Canadian icebreaker in the case of any emergency, which command will have priority?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker,-


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



INDIAN AFFAIRS


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
He set out earlier the government policy respecting Eskimos. I would like to know if the same policy applies to the Indians. I am thinking, for instance, about the Indian reserve of Caughnawaga. Are there any problems between Quebec and Ottawa concerning the treatment to be given to Indians who live on reserves?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the same basic policy applies to Indian and to Eskimos. We want the Indians and the Eskimos living in the province of Quebec to enjoy their full rights as Quebecers and as Canadians.


David Réal Caouette: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to bring to the attention of hon. members that we will be running out of time in a few minutes. I would like to receive the co-operation of hon. members in connection with supplementary questions. We should limit them, if hon. members will agree to this, to the next ten minutes or so.



TAXATION


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance who is not in the House today. I hope he is not taking time out from his parliamentary duties to discuss the white paper throughout the country or anything like that.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Perhaps I might get the information-


An hon. Member:: What were you doing?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Perhaps I might get the information, Mr. Speaker, from the Minister without Portfolio who assists the Minister of Finance. I should like to ask now whether the Minister of Finance has conducted any inquiries to see whether there is anything to the claim put forward by the Iron Ore Company of Canada that the tax changes proposed in the white paper would make it impossible for them to proceed with this contract? Has the Department of Finance conducted any such inquiries and has the department established any mechanism or machinery to look into cases of this sort to determine the effect of these proposals upon developments which are now said to be put in doubt by these proposals?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance is representing Canada at an international meeting.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Is he telling them about the white paper?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: With respect to the question of the Leader of the Opposition, I can tell him that the Iron Ore Company did come to the department with some rough figures about their own estimates of the effect of the white paper on the sale to Japan in question. The government asked for more substantial information, some six weeks ago, and it has not yet been provided by the company. The government is, of course, quite willing to receive and study any further information on this matter that the company wishes to provide.



REQUEST FOR DELAY IN GRANTING NATURAL


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources a question regarding the five applications that are now before the National Energy Board involving the export to the United States of some nine trillion cubic feet of natural gas
April 7, 1970	COMMONS
valued at some $3 billion spread over the next 20 to 25 years. In view of the fact that this matter must come to cabinet for approval, I want to ask the minister whether the government can give the House the assurance that no such export permits will be granted until the entire energy policy has been fully dealt with and completely formulated?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, when the National Energy Board has a hearing such as this very important hearing in respect of applications for permits for the export of gas, it sits in its quasi-judicial capacity and, of course, there is no interference by myself or by the government in its deliberations. When its decision is made it will be referred to cabinet and will be considered at that time. I do not think I can add anything useful by anticipating any cabinet decision in that regard.
Mr. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The
Islands): I have a supplementary question. In view of the fact that at the hearing before the board there were differences of opinion as to the surplus gas which is available in Canada, would the minister at least undertake, before any final decision is made, to make a statement on motions giving the House the information as to what the actual finding of the National Energy Board is in respect of the amount of surplus gas in Canada?


John James Greene: Well, Mr. Speaker, the evidence before the board is, of course, a matter of public record. The National Energy Board under the present law of Canada is the custodian of the public resources of Canada in respect of gas, and I feel very certain that the board has exercised that responsibility in the best interests of Canada in years past and I am sure will continue to do so. With regard to my hon. friend's suggestion as to presenting to the House the report of the National Energy Board as presented to cabinet, I will be very glad to consider that when the time comes.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the minister would advise the House if they are using the need for natural gas in the United States as a bargaining tool to increase the export of crude petroleum?


John James Greene: No, Mr. Speaker; the law is very clear in this regard. The only exports that are permissible in respect of natural gas
DEBATES	5575
Inquiries of the Ministry are those that are clearly surplus to the Canadian need in the foreseeable future. The National Energy Board is the custodian of the public domain in that regard and protects the public rights of future Canadians. I do not think it would be possible for the government of Canada to use the future rights of Canadians in this regard as a counter for oil at the bargaining table today.



HOUSING


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I should like to direct to the minister in charge of housing. When can we expect the long-awaited statement on the guidelines for public housing?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, I am rather hopeful I will be able to make a statement within the next ten days.



TRANSPORT


Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, this question is directed to the Minister of Transport. I should like to ask him when the labour-transport study on safety and manning provisions on coastal towboats, which was chaired by Mr. Elsestrom, will be made available to Members of Parliament and the public?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I will have to take that question as notice.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancaster):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. What steps is the government taking to assist earthquake victims in Turkey? I ask this question as one of the members who over Easter saw earthquake devastation in another country.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will take the question as notice.
April 7, 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry GRAIN


Mr. R. R. Soulham (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister without Portfolio responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. In light of the stringent cash shortage in the western grain economy is the minister giving serious consideration to making up the cash deficiency to those farmers who were forced to take a lower initial payment per bushel for grain delivered under the deferred quota system in the last crop year?


Hon. Otlo E. Lang (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, this question has been asked and answered many times before in this House.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. Under the wheat acreage reduction program we are guaranteeing the farmer an eight-bushel quota on his summerfallow. The eight-bushel quota is for wheat. Is it permissible to allocate the quota to barley or some other crop? In other words, is it permissible to transfer it?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the initial assertion by the hon. member is not correct. The summer-fallow acreage, including the portion of credit for a previous year's summerfallow acreage, is available to the farmer for allocation to wheat or to one of the other grains as he may choose. The eight-bushel quota is only applicable to wheat.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, in light of the fact that the eight-bushel guarantee is only in respect of wheat, will this not in fact encourage wheat production by farmers who do not now have surplus wheat?


Otto Emil Lang: No, Mr. Speaker. The quota for other grains will be on a seeded acreage base, with acres seeded to those grains available for quota along with any acres which may be allocated to them from the summerfallow eligibility base. The quotas for these other grains will be called forward on their own in such a way that the producers of those grains will share the total market for those grains in direct proportion to their acreage or allocation for those grains.


Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister without Portfolio in charge of the Wheat Board. In view of the fact that the farmers of North Dakota have indicated they will be raising their spring wheat acreage by 10 per cent because of Canada's wheat reduction, is the minister now prepared to amend the new quota regulations in order to make them more equitable for those farmers who have already reduced their wheat acreage in western Canada?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, of course the overall indications are that United States wheat acreage is in a downward direction. The original proposal and the proposal for wheat acreage reduction as it stands does recognize the reduction in wheat acreage last year by the allowance of a 25 per cent credit toward quota based on any summerfallow from last year.


Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister without Portfolio from Saskatchewan. In view of reports that two Canadian Wheat Board commissioners were considering resigning their posts, has the minister assured the board that the government is fully committed to the principle of orderly marketing and in particular that it will resist proposals to allow open marketing of feed grains?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I have made it perfectly clear to the Wheat Board that they have my confidence and that the principle of Wheat Board marketing and orderly marketing is fully supported by this government. I must say I could only label as pure speculation the report to which the hon. member refers.



Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the request by the new Cambodian government that the International Control Commission reassume its duties and also having regard to the appeal made by the government of India which serves with Canada on the ICC, could the Prime Minister inform the House whether there has been a decision regarding the delaying of the closing of our mission in Cambodia
April 7, 1970

and whether or not the policy of the government has been communicated to the Geneva powers?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker; there has been no decision to delay the closing of the mission.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day. I regret that a few members rose a number of times and did not have an opportunity to ask their questions I have tried to make a mental note of their efforts and will endeavour to give them preference tomorrow. This includes the hon. member for Mackenzie.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, April 6 consideration of Biil 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. Colin D. Gibson (Hamillon-Weni-worth):: Mr. Speaker, the United Nations declaration on the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination which was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on November 21, 1963, was supported by Canada. It provides as follows:
The necessity of speedily eliminating racial discrimination throughout the world, in all its forms and manifestations, and of securing understanding of and respect for the dignity of the human person.
I submit that is an important part of Canadian foreign policy. Surely, the provisions before the House in Bill C-3 are consistent with that policy and inconsistent with any other conclusion than that we are genuinely acting against unjust discrimination.
An editorial in the Toronto Globe and Mail this morning, Mr. Speaker, expressed the view that Bill C-3 is a clear attempt to legislate morality and that its main section would make it a crime to communicate statements that promote hatred. The editorial goes on to ask why. Then, it continues:
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 a breach of the peace or even the likelihood of a breach of the peace, it simply says it is wrong to promote hate, period.
Hate Propaganda
I respectfully disagree with the tone of the editorial. It completely overlooks the evil effects on the lives and social attitudes of classes singled out for hatred, which in some cases leaves scars and wounds on their minds and personalities, but also overlooks the tendency to single out groups for social discrimination of a deplorable nature. Also, Mr. Speaker, this same editorial overlooks the fact that the bill is not designed to prevent hatred, period. But rather the bill is designed to prohibit hatred directed against any identifiable group which is specifically defined in proposed new section 267A(4) as, "any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, or ethnic origin." Thus, here we have a classic example of a nationally read newspaper giving a wrong impression of the provisions of a proposed criminal statutory amendment.
The subject matter of Bill C-3 has been considered by a royal commission. The bill has been thoroughly discussed in committee, and now is the time to support it in this House. It represents a major landmark in the extension of the laws of libel and slander to cover vulnerable groups in our society and to protect those identifiable groups from the vile abuse of verbal pollution expressed in the form of hatred.
Why? Because minorities need protection, and the Canadian standard of fair play for all demands it. That is why, Mr. Speaker. We can all recall the events which occurred prior to and during the Second World War when, by use of expressions of hatred, hatred led to genocide, and millions of innocent people of the Jewish faith were slaughtered in Europe.
I suggest that hatred breeds contempt, and that the result in society is a form of social class distinction which is abhorrent to all Canadians. The scars created by expressions of hatred based on discrimination against colour, race or creed, in many cases last forever. The soul and the spirit of Canadians require a standard of conduct which will eliminate the stigma of second class citizenship.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, the bill has profound educational value as a measure to enhance the strength and spirit of true Canadian respect for the dignity of man. To me, we are strengthening the bonds of citizenship in Canadian society by demonstrating the intention and determination of the Canadian people to prevent social class distinction, and to place those in identifiable groups on exactly the same level of respect

April 7. 1970
Hate Propaganda
and regard as all other Canadians. This bill will be a victory for the dignity of the rights of Canadians. As a lawyer, I see this bill as a specific example of the rule of law whereby "all are equal in the eyes of the law", and perhaps this bill expresses the view that all are socially equal and not despised or discriminated against by reason of race, religion, colour or ethnic origin in the eyes of the law as well as in the soul of man.
In these days of television, radio and fast communication it is sound legislative planning to provide such humane criminal legislation. Thus, we in this place will in some measure remove the psychological pain and the unfortunate doubts and uncertainties which in some cases pervade the minds of individuals in minority groups, to their lasting misery and resentment. We shall prohibit hatred in the forms expressed in the bill by criminal laws of restraint, and thus remove from identifiable groups the stigma left by the expression of that hatred.
We in Parliament do not seek to pry into the minds of men, but we do intend to prohibit acts of discrimination against identifiable groups. Mr. Speaker, when I think of all those Canadians who sacrificed their lives in war, in the war against tyranny and racial discrimination, I do believe that in a very real and lasting sense we here today are supporting the cause for which they valiantly fought and died.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, let me first pay tribute to those who have already discussed this matter in the House. I think this is one of the occasions when hon. members rise to great heights in their attention, discussion, and contributions to the subject matter which is before this House for its decision. I say this advisedly because unfortunately we have heard a few really snide comments upon the nature and the quality of the discussions in this House. That may be all very well for those few people who think this is a place which should be an abattoir, swimming in blood at all times, rather than a place providing grave and solemn opportunity for the discussion of serious issues. This has been one of those occasions, and I pay tribute to hon. members who have made their speeches along those lines, although I may not and probably will not agree with everything that has been said.
Now, Mr. Speaker, because this sort of debate touches the consciences, the feelings, the emotions, and the background-possibly to some extent there is an hereditary aspect

to it-people will take different positions. We saw evidence of this yesterday with some members on the government side. I mention in particular the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Hogarth), who proposed a motion with which I was in sympathy. If he had been able to persuade five of his colleagues to stand and the matter had been put to a vote I would have voted for it. But he was not supported by a large number of his colleagues and so the matter did not come to a vote. However, I pause to say it is quite obvious that a great many members opposite must now be discussing in their seats what took place yesterday.
I have no doubt that as time passes, and as this debate progresses, there will be members on this side of the House who may differ from the things I have to say, who may differ from the majority of the people in their party, and that may be this party or it may be the New Democratic Party. I would think it passing strange, Mr. Speaker, and I say this through you to hon. members of this House, if there were not to some extent some parting of the ways in the approaches which many hon. members take to this particular measure because of the issues which are involved.
I agree with what the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) said yesterday when he pointed out that no particular, sudden emergency has arisen which calls into being the need for this legislation. No particular public situation has come about. There is no clear and present danger. As a matter of fact, there has been a presistent, stubborn and very well organized campaign to bring these new laws into effect, and it will ultimately succeed.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
I do not fault the people who have pursued this campaign. It is their democratic right. It is proper for them to do so. I do not fault them for that, and I do not say the government should not have introduced the bill because of that. I simply pause to say that in 1964 there was a private members' public bill introduced by I think it was at that time the hon. member for Cartier. I spoke on that. The bill was not quite the same, but it dealt primarily with the issues which are before the House today. I opposed part of it then, as I oppose part of it today. Some of the things I said then I am going to repeat today and I am fortified in this because after six years of consideration, contemplation and discussion of this issue, I hold the same views even more strongly than I did then.
April 7. 1970

As has been indicated, Mr. Speaker, there are three aspects of this bill and then there are some consequential matters which follow.
I have no d.ffieulty in accepting the proposals contained in section 267A dealing with genocide and I doubt very much if there will ever be any prosecutions launched in this country. However, the passage of this particular section constitutes an adherance to an international obligation which this country accepted some time ago. I have no hesitation in saying that if this section stood by itself I would have no problems at all.
I differ to some extent from my colleague the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) in that I would not be too afraid of accepting the first part of section 267B, the proposed new section of the Criminal Code, which provides:
Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace-
I am reinforced in my view that this would not be too difficult a proposition to accept because it does contain a safeguard. Hon. members who have practised law, and all hon. members who have had occasion to deal with the Criminal Code, will realize that there is in fact this safeguard, that in order for there to be a conviction it must be established that the incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I abhor violence-we all abhor violence. We have seen too much of it. I am afraid that in too many deliberative assemblies in the world today there is not that opportunity to reflect the views, the thinking, wishes and desires of the people. We have too much domination by an executive and not enough opportunity by the elected branch to pursue their task for the people. One of the reasons we have this violence, and why it will continue, has been the failure of the deliberative bodies to exercise the right which they must exercise to give the views, thoughts, wishes and aspirations of the people full consideration.
Because of that, Mr. Speaker, when I see this particular subsection which says that where there is likely to be a breach of the peace an offence would be brought about, I am prepared to accept it. To that extent, I am prepared to confirm what I said earlier, that there are differences, there are distinctions between the thinking and the views of hon. members of this House and even between hon. members of the same party. To that
2221&-7J
Hate Propaganda
extent, I would part company from my distinguished colleague, the learned and hon. member for Calgary North.
I would point out, however, that I am not as much concerned about it as I otherwise would be, Mr. Speaker. To substantiate that point, I refer to the speech I made on July 10, 1964 when, in dealing with this very same issue 1 said, as recorded on page 5359 of Hansard:
The hon. member quite properly pointed his finger at the word "person"-
We were dealing with the question of defamatory libel then.
-and said that the word "person" having been used in the Criminal Code, this automatically excludes actions which are directed against a class.
This was to distinguish whether or not an action would lie under the Criminal Code for inciting hatred of a class of people as distinguished from an individual.
At first blush I think that is a very sound argument, but I would refer the hon. member, who is from the province of Quebec, to a Quebec case. I do not have the case itself here, but it is referred to in The Canadian Abridgement, volume 13, and in column 436 I read these words:
... a charge of publishing a defamatory libel against the Roman Catholic clergy of a particular diocese does not disclose an offence. Section 317... specifically refers to a "person" and the definition of "person" in section 2(13) is not sufficiently wide to include an unincorporated group-
The citation then goes on:
An indictment will lie at the common law, and the common law is in effect in this country to the extent to which it has not been-
-taken away.
-the indictment in such case must allege (and the crown must prove) that the tendency of the libel was to excite hatred against all members of the class and to provoke a breach of the peace.
In other words, Mr. Speaker, by the common law which still exists in this country, it would be possible to lay a charge under almost the same facts and circumstances as set out in the first part of this proposed new section 267B (1).
For that reason, I am not too concerned with the argument of the hon. member for Calgary North, and I disagree on this aspect of his amendment. In the very rare and almost unprecedented circumstances which could bring about the laying of a charge under this subsection if passed, as it will be passed no doubt, it would be the same as an information laid under common law so we are not losing anything and we get this protection. Hon. members must think about this.

April 7, 1970
Hate Propaganda
In order for a conviction to be brought about, at some time or other a judge or a jury, and ultimately a court of appeal, will have to say that the statements made in this public place were of such a nature that they were liable to lead to violence, to a breach of the peace. Abhoring as I do the thought that violence could become a way of life, I would go along with the section because it has that protection. Thus I do not need to move, as I otherwise might have moved, an amendment to the motion we are now considering because we have the protection of the existing common law which covers this particular area.
Any reservations which I had about 267B <1), Mr. Speaker, have grown to such substantial doubts with regard to 267B (2), that I could not accept it under any circumstances. I agree with much of what was said yesterday about the inherent difficult and dangerous circumstances which would be brought about if 267B (2) were passed. It would lead the law enforcement agencies and the courts of this land into a very serious situation. It is bad law; it is bad philosophy and the facts are bad. It is not the kind of law which a country such as Canada should have. Much as I appreciate the views of other people, and much as I accept the views of many of my friends, I could not under any condition support a bill which contains a clause of this kind.
Life and society ought to consist of a continuous process of the circulation of creeds and philosophies, each in turn being conceived in the conflict of ideas and often born to the accompaniment of passion and anger. Each rises, blooms, and then fades, but contributes much to the values and the philosophies which succeed. On this account alone, we have a grave responsibility not to diminish the opportunity, not only to permit but to strongly encourage the clash between people and ideas. When we stop doing this, sir, I say to you, and through you to my colleagues, that the motor which powers society will run out of fuel and our civilization will be on its way to perishing.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
We wonder at times what will be the interpretation of some of the clauses of this bill. What will be the problems to which these clauses will give rise. What is to be the interpretation of hatred? It is all very well for my friends to say, "Look at the dictionary", but the dictionary is not good enough; it gives no answer on an issue like this. What I may consider to be hatred may be something quite different in the mind of the person to whom I

am addressing my remarks. How is there to be an opportunity for the conflict of ideas and the clash of opinions if we are to be inhibited in the fullest expression of our views? Hatred to me, my friends, my family and the people I associate with may mean one thing; it may mean something entirely different to other people. What will it mean to a judge? In the final analysis, in any jurisprudence on this issue, the court will probably say that it is what reasonable people conceive, under certain reasonable conditions, to constitute hatred. That will mean that hatred will be what the majority of the people of the country consider hatred to be. The majority will be imposing their interpretation of hatred on the minority. I do not accept that for a minute, especially since this may mean that matters arising out of the communication of ideas which are not likely to lead to violence will be the basis of convictions. I cannot accept that in any circumstances.
I raise another thought. How are we to consider existing material? What about existing books? What about films and what about scripts? There are books published 100 years ago which, in my opinion, contain phrases, sentences and whole paragraphs that under this law, if passed, would constitute breaches of the criminal law. If I were to give to my hon. and distinguished friend, the leader of my party, (Mr. Stanfield) a book which contained this material I could be convicted of "communicating" within the meaning of this particular clause.


John James Greene: It is a change when the Tories communicate.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, more questions are raised than answered by this legislation. I know the government has established a certain number of defences but these defences in turn will create more bad jurisprudence, times we wonder at the government's reasons When governments are compelled to dredge up a number of defences such as are involved here, that is a clear indication that the legislation is not, and never will be, good. At for introducing this particular part of the legislation. It is true-we all admit it and we all worry about it-that many horrible things have been and indeed are being perpetrated, partly or to a large extent because hatred has been aroused. There are those who believe or who feel-because this is a matter of emotion rather than of reason-that the civilized portion of the world should make a declaration
April 7. 1970

Hate Propaganda
either by legislation or otherwise, collectively admit its faults, cry mea culpa, and make atonement.
Even if we admit that society and humanity are imperfect, that does not mean and certainly should not mean that we should be compelled to pass unsound legislation now which could easily create far more problems in the future. A careful reading of the committee proceedings suggests that a goodly number of its members probably felt very uncomfortable about this particular clause. They made a number of attempts to amend it. The hon. member for New Westminster made attempts to amend it, as did other hon. members. They were not successful; all the same, the government permitted certain varied limited amendments to be made. I suggest that any objective reading of the transcript of those committee proceedings indicates that a great many members of the committee were not happy about this particular clause. It was included for very unsound reasons, as set out by my hon. friend for Calgary North. It was included for political purposes or largely for political purposes. So I ask, why tack on to the valid part of the bill those parts which are unsound and will cause a great many problems in this country.
We must bear in mind that the government has reduced the Cohen Committee proposals very substantially. Having read the evidence and listened to the minister, I am convinced that the minister and his advisers were determined that this bill was to pass with the very minimum of alteration. The minister had his mind set on it and all this nonsense about referring it to the committee for change was just that, nonsense. The minister's advisers and the cabinet had made up their minds as to what it was they wanted, and this is what has been introduced, bad as it is. For those reasons, I feel I cannot support the bill on third reading. Of course, for the reasons I have given I will support this amendment, although I have reservations about the one clause to which I referred.
I want to say finally that the 100 per cent proponents of all parts of this bill will say that we must forbid bad men from perverting society by the propagation of opinions which are regarded as vicious and violent. As against this, I suggest, there must be complete liberty to contradict and disprove opinions so long as there is no apparent and immediate likelihood of violence. It is indeed strange that men should admit the validity of the arguments for free discussion but object to their being pushed to the extreme.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, my remarks on Bill C-3 will be brief, but 1 feel duty bound to participate in the debate.
The purpose of the bill is to curb hate propaganda of all kinds in this country. This very important bill can produce good results as well as bad ones. Should a totalitarian government ever take power in Canada and decide that whatever does not stem from the government is hate propaganda and whoever thinks otherwise than the government is an agent of hate propaganda, then I believe the freedom of individuals and of society would clearly be in jeopardy.
c (3:20 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, we of the Creditiste party maintain that the individual is the most important element in any organized society, that he has rights, and duties also, that he must be respected and show respect for others.
The present bill certainly has a very definite purpose since it provides, and I quote:
267 A. (2) In this section "genocide" includes any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy in whole or in part any identifiable group, namely:
(a)	killing members of the group, or
(b)	deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction.
Such genocides have taken place in certain parts of the world where everything was done to exterminate or wipe out some human groups by systematic murder.
For instance, the Germans were accused, during and after the war, of having tried to exterminate the whole Jewish people. In Africa, Nigerians were heard to say that all Biafrans should disappear. Now, thinking along these lines is prevalent in Guatemala, as it was in Cuba, before the advent of Castro, when all reactionaries were to be suppressed, etc.
Mr. Speaker, the adoption of such legislation will endanger the freedom of individuals who should have the right to their opinions.
Mr. Speaker, for many years now, we have been hearing about freedom of the press, freedom of speech, freedom of the individual, political freedom, freedom of religion, of language.
We cherish these freedoms like the apple of our eye. We want to feel free.

April 7. 1970
Hate Propaganda
On the other hand, hate literature incites people to revolt and we could quote cases. In 1962, the Liberals accused me of being a Hitler, a Mussolini. Newspapers in general, especially the English ones, gave it to me hard. If legislation such as the one now under study had been in force then, maybe we could have complained and said: This is a case of hate propaganda since it affects the freedom of the individual.
But as we have been elected democratically we did not have recourse to violence or try to suppress the die-hard Liberals. We simply endeavoured to defeat them through a democratic election. We succeeded to a certain extent and the same thing applies to the Progressive Conservatives whom we drove out of Quebec practically without harming anybody.
As for the liberty of the press, I think that everybody recognizes its existence even though, at times, it is rather annoying to do so, because we know that the press is not always honest, that sometimes it imagines certain things. I do not speak only of the big thick La Presse of Montreal but of newspapers in general in which attacks have been launched against the Creditistes, as it was done in the newspaper Le Devoir.
We must recognize that newspapers are free to write even lies against us as long as it is not libellous, and we can always take legal action and oblige these people to retract, if we deem necessary to do so.
Obviously, however, there is a difference between freedom of the press, written or spoken, and freedom which tolerates subversion.
Earlier, I asked a question to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) about a small paper published by certain University of Sherbrooke students, L'Estrien Rouge, which features the picture and the declarations of Mao Tse-tung. On the front page, there is an article titled "Good News: TWO FEDERAL M.P.'s HECKLED AT U. OF S."
The article is not very long, but it shows clearly that we have here in Canada, in the province of Quebec and more particularly in the City of Sherbrooke, young students, probably very few, who spread hate propaganda, make subversive statements and want to destroy what others have built. We must remember that the University of Sherbrooke, the University of Montreal, the University of Ottawa and Laval University in Quebec City have been built with the taxes of the Canadian people in general and particularly of the
fMr. Caouette.]
people of Quebec, to allow foreign professors to come and teach our youth the road to subversion.
Mr. Speaker, this is an unthinkable situation! We cannot accept it but we must believe it because it is real. What do those young people write anonymously? The article reads as follows and I quote:
At the noon debate of March 16, in Antre II of the University of Sherbrooke, two lackeys-
They try to be polite.
-of English-Canadian colonialism, Ouellet and Gervais, Liberal members of Parliament, came to praise federalism. After jeers from progressive students, there was a discussion between the students and the two lackeys.
At a certain moment, a progressive student-
Instead of calling him a Communist, he is said to be progressive. It is more fashionable and the people will take it more easily. He is perhaps a poor student, but he is progressive when it comes to disrupting the order which must exist in Canada and in a province like ours.
I will now continue to quote:
-a progressive student asked Ouellet-
Not Mr. Ouellet, Mr. Speaker, but only Ouellet.
-why he did not ask Mackasey to give guns to the employees of G. Lapalme to protect themselves from Kierans, the puppet, and the SS of Montreal? Ouellet answered that this was not the solution and that some committees had been set up to study their case. The student replied that the workers were disgusted by solutions such as those at the George T. Davie and that they believe that the matter could be settled with guns; they would shoot such traitors as himself.
That is the member for Papineau. I proceed.
During the noon debate the student crowd was also heard to shout: ''Murray Hill, out of Quebec". Some showed their discontent by throwing eggs-
-throwing eggs is quite useful for informing the people-
-and other objects at the two official compre-dores, others did not miss the opportunity to jostle Ouellet when he came out of Antre II.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
When the meeting was over, the student leaders of the Parti Quebecois, who during the debate had turned the students' nationalism against the bourgeois federalists, blamed the progressive students for their improper behaviour towards the representatives of colonialism.
The attitude of the traitors, Ouellet and Gervais, representatives of the colonialists, serves as evidence that only the strength of the people-
-not the vote-
-the strength of the people will be able to throw them out of Quebec.
May Quebec people wage a good fight!

April 7, 1970
Mr. Speaker, that was written by young people, aged 18 and 19, who attend the University of Sherbrooke, perhaps half a dozen students out of 8,000, 10,000 or 15,000 students. And it is hot-heads like them who spur hatred, trouble, contempt for law and order.
Apparently those people have had not enough examples to be able to forecast what might happen here in our province. Let us have a look at what happened barely a year ago in Czechoslovakia when the Czechoslovak students were literally crushed after they decided to recover their freedom. But these students of today are the sons of the Czechoslovak students who 25 years ago advocated exactly what some hot-heads are advocating now at the University of Sherbrooke.
The Czechs wanted their liberation, but once they were liberated they fell into the hands of the Communists. Then they again lost their freedom and as they wanted to recover it 25 years later they were literally crushed.
Shall we follow that example?
That is why Bill C-3 can, to a certain extent, be justified. It can help to protect people not against elements that can oppose our views, but against those who would, if ever they took power, deny all freedom to those they now want to replace. In the name of the freedom they now want for themselves, they will deny that same freedom to citizens once they are in power.
Mr. Speaker, we cannot afford to dream in colour, we must look at the facts as they are. And we will hear these people say: "Hurrah for the liberation of the Quebec people!"
Let us consider what happened in Russia. The Ukraine, for instance, was once a free country, but, today, it is not anymore. And the same thing is happening in all Communist countries of Europe.
And there are in Quebec and the rest of Canada people who cannot foresee the consequences of what they are doing today.
It is all very well, Mr. Speaker, to rouse people and to say: Take up guns. But is any thought given to the consequences? Last night Rene Levesque said on television that if he did not win the Quebec elections on April 29 there might be violence. He stated: Vote for me or else bombs will explode.
Is that true democracy or a smart attitude? On the contrary it is mere blackmailing. I am convinced that most Quebec citizens, as those in the rest of Canada, want order and justice
Hate Propaganda
in our country and not the disorder and anarchy that is advocated in certain parts of Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, we live undoubtedly in one of the most beautiful countries in the world. That there are things to be improved in this country, we admit it. I believe the hon. members of other political parties recognize that something should be changed in order to promote trust between individuals on a larger scale. Once that goal was reached, Bill C-3 would be absolutely useless. Lack of trust, jealousy and envy have laid hold upon the conscience of individuals to such an extent that human beings persist in devouring each other instead of uniting in order to build something.
The poor are against the rich and the workers against the employers. There you have subversion! Some union leaders, instead of acting as moderators between employers and workers have become distributors of boxing gloves so that employers may stand against workers. Instead of thinking soundly, they just sound off.
The workers are fed up with such leaders. They want to be treated like human beings and not as numbers or as people cynically exploited by sinister exploiters, which is what some Canadian labour leaders are at the present time.
There are many examples of that situation. But the cause of all this is hate propaganda. Some Canadians have said that they had no money because the Jewish people were hoarding. Maybe we should advise those who are not Jewish to do the same.
While going through the Montreal phone directory yesterday or the day before yesterday, I came across the name of The Hebrew Free Loan Organization. This is a body that has the legal competence to grant interest-free loans to Jewish people, in order to promote mutual help. Should a Jew wish to go into business, those people will lend him money without interest. Instead of criticizing them, why don't we do the same?
The Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) is letting me know he can guess what I am driving at.
If the Canadian government said: Let us use the Bank of Canada to grant loans without interest to the provinces, municipalities or school boards, there would be less hate propaganda. There would be co-operation. We would no longer hear of conflicts between Quebec and Ottawa, or Quebec and the nine other provinces. We often hear in Quebec
5S84

April 7. 1970
Hate Propaganda
that the province is not treated as well as the other provinces. And we have a proof of this if we go by what the government says, that is that there are only three wealthy provinces in Canada: Ontario, and the two Social Credit western provinces, British Columbia and Alberta. The seven other provinces are poor. And amongst those poor provinces, some are even poorer than Quebec: New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan. It is not a matter of one province against nine, but rather of seven provinces against three!
If there were more Social Credit provinces in Canada, I am convinced there would be more prosperity. Ten provinces could prosper, because the problem remains the same. It is often said that man does not live by bread and butter alone. Indeed, he must also feed his intelligence.
Mr. Speaker, has my time expired or were you going to call me to order?
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)


Mr. Speaker:: No, I would never call the hon. member to order, but I must however remind him that, pursuant to the Standing Orders, his time has expired. He cannot continue his remarks without the unanimous consent of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the Chair and my colleagues.


Mr. Turner (Oltawa-Carleion):: This is an excellent election speech.


David Réal Caouette: My dear colleague, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) acknowledges that I am a good speaker, that I inform him, that I give him the means to suggest to the government a way to deal efficiently with hate propaganda. Moreover, such is the object of the bill.
Mr. Speaker, as I was saying earlier, man does not feed only on bread and butter. His mind must also be fed. However, there is another saying that it's no use preaching to a hungry man. When somebody is hungry, it is useless to try to force moral principles on him, for as long as he is hungry, his ears and his mind will not be able to understand anything. That is the point that the Rallie-ment Creditiste has stressed for a long time. We have been laughed at, but nevertheless no solution has been found to the problems facing the country.

Bills are introduced against hate propaganda, which can very well exist in many fields, but that hate has a root somewhere. People have a grudge against the rich. Why? Because they are not as well-off.
When I hear the socialists say to the workers that they are poor because the employer's profits are too high, I have to laugh. Few people can make out a $1 million cheque in Canada today. Millionaires do not pile up their millions in their bedrooms for the sake of hoarding money: They put them to good use. When they expand their plants or build houses or castles, they provide work for the people. In fact, when buying construction materials, they do society a service.
According to the socialists, the rich has to be destroyed because, allegedly, they get richer all the time. If all the poor people united to destroy the estates of the rich, they would then realize that they still have to live in the same shack. Nothing would be changed. Therefore, some basic thing has to be changed to prevent the hatred, misunderstanding and disunity that exist today. In his connection the Ralliement Creditiste suggests a monetary reform that sets the individual free and allows him to be his true self in a Canada that he himself has built for himself, his family and his children.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Ouellei:: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege.
The hon. member for Temiscamingue having alluded to events in which I was involved in Sherbrooke not long ago, I would like briefly to make one point clear. I spoke before a group of about 400 people and hardly twenty students behaved rudely and caused disorder. They bore the sign of the Parti Quebecois.
However, I should say that most of the students attending this demonstration understood the advantages of federalism and of Quebec being part of Canada.


Mr. John Roberts (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this legislation and to support the amendment. Before I do so I should like to compliment the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner), particularly since I propose to attack him in a few moments. I think that he has been the minister most concerned to involve backbenchers and the committees effectively in the legislative process. I compliment him for that and am grateful to him. He
April 7, 1970

has made a more determined effort, I think, than any other minister to make our new committee system work.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John (Moody) Roberts: But in spite of all his praiseworthy and admirable qualities, he has come up this time with legislation which is ill-conceived and ill-constructed. I agree with those members who have already spoken and suggested there is no real need for this legislation, and that what needs to be done is already covered by laws of libel and laws concerning public order.
I do not particularly wish to repeat their arguments, but I do wish to note the rather bizarre argument that the Minister of Justice presented last night to the effect that this new legislation cannot be both unnecessary and pernicious at the same time. It is exactly because it is an unnecessary restriction of freedom of speech that it is pernicious. Those measures which we now have dealing with libel and with public order are necessary because they deal with actions, with things which may lead directly to action, or because they deal with specific and identifiable, individual interests.
It is exactly because this legislation goes further and deals in a rather vague way with expressions of opinion in general areas that it is pernicious. I think it is not only pernicious; it is ineffective-ineffective in dealing with what its objective purports to be. One of the problems with this legislation is that if it were effective it would drive underground or drive into hidden areas those expressions and feelings which-if we are to combat them- because they are held in the minds of men, can only be combatted through discussion, argument and controversy.
There are, of course, defences in the legislation-rather bizarre ones. The first thing one should note about them is that they shift the onus of responsibility away from the Crown to the person who is accused. They place the onus of proving his good faith upon him, instead of placing the onus upon those who are attacking or condemning him. The very phrases which are used are so vague and general. The defences talk of "good faith". They talk about what is "relevant," about what is "reasonable." They talk about what a man "believes to be true." Again, they talk of "good faith." These phrases are phrases that apply to states of mind. They go to what a man thought or what he believed to be true. But, "there is no art to find the mind's con-22218-8
Hate Propaganda
struction in the face." It is very difficult to go into a person's mind to find what he truly believed, what he truly held, in good faith. How is the judge to interpret these rather vague defences which are presented within this legislation?
This legislation transfers to the courts in an indistinct and general way a whole area of limitation of speech which I contend it should be for politicians to define, and as precisely as possible, rather than for courts freely to interpret. These defences are so wide that you could drive a herd of drunken elephants through them. I have no doubt that even Adolf Hitler believed in good faith that the measures he proposed were ultimately for the general good. I suppose that almost all bigots, all those who have been imbued with racial hatred, had good faith in their opinions and believed them to be true. Under these defences, if taken literally, such people would escape prosecution.
If it were only a question of practicability, if it were only a question of whether the law would work, whether it could be applied effectively, then I would bow to those of greater knowledge and experience and, it may very well be, wisdom. But it appears to me that this legislation as proposed should be disposed of not only on practical grounds but on grounds of principle. I contend that it is ill-conceived; that it strikes at the very roots of the Liberal philosophy. It traduces the Liberal tradition.
Last night, when dealing with the philosophical aspects, the Minister of Justice said that the opponents of this legislation had been dealing in verbal gamesmanship. I am not exactly sure what verbal gamesmanship is, but I do recognize verbal straw men when I see them. The minister said there were three basic assumptions which were hidden and false. One was that opponents of this legislation believed that there were absolute rights. Another was that one had to be either a civil libertarian or not; one had to be either for or against. Those are the Minister's straw men.
These are not really the objections that the opponents of the legislation are putting forward. They agree, as he mentioned, that the question is not whether one is for or against free speech, but rather, what are the permissible limits of free speech. What are the permissible contours of freedom of speech and discussion? That is the question. What principles does one use to establish this delimitation? On what basis does one make that delimitation?

April 7, 1970
Hate Propaganda
I have looked through the minister's remarks, during the course oi which he stated several alternative bases for the limitation that he has proposed. He talked about "outraged feelings of the community". He talked about the "total integrity" and "moral sense of the community"; about "standards of decency"; the "conscience of the community" and "articulated values". He talked about what is "offensive" what is "heinous" and what is "abhorrent". They are the bases for the limitations that he would like to impose. Finally, he said that the limitations should be what the government believes to be reasonable.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
Members of the government and members of the committee, he said, who had studied this bill had tried to achieve a reasonable balance, a reasonable reconciliation, so that the conflicting legitimate interests of freedom of expression, on the one hand, and the protection of reputation and group identity, on the other, are balanced. "Feelings of the community", "abhorrence"; "what is believed to be reasonable by the government"-that is exactly the kind of rationale and justification for the limitation of free speech which liberals have fought for centuries. It is extraordinary what societies will consider at any time to be abhorrent. It was because the Athenians thought the views of Socrates were abhorrent that he was put to death. It was because the Romans felt the views of Christ were abhorrent that he was crucified. It is because Protestants have felt the views of Catholics to be abhorrent that they have tried to exerminate them-and Catholics the views of Protestants. Moslems have believed the views of Christians to be so abhorrent that they would prevent them from being disseminated. The church believed the views of Galileo to be abhorrent and tried to extirpate them from the books by command.
In this century, the people of Tennessee have thought that views on evolution were so abhorrent that they should not be allowed to be propagated. Within the last 15 years people in the Uniled States have believed that views of Communism were so un-American and so abhorrent that they should not be allowed to be advocated.
Liberals have fought for centuries, as I have said, to develop bases for the defence of free speech on a basis other than the generalized conscience and moral feeling of the community. They go back to Pericles, 25 centuries ago, who said that in Athens we allow all

men to come, and all men to speak and say what they will, and let all men judge because
we have confidence in the discrimination and judgment of the people in our society.
This is the kind of view which John Stuart Mill expressed in the last century when he suggested we must allow ideas which are abhorrent and wicked to us to be presented and discussed because only in free discussion will one find the truth; only in the clash of ideas will one be able to determine what the truth is. By saying to a man that you will not allow him to present his views because they are so wicked or abhorrent, you are denying the possibilities of persuading him through argument. You are also denying yourself the chance of re-affirming and strengthening the views that you have by presenting them in contested arguments.
Liberals have drawn a distinction between actions and thoughts. They have said actions should be limited when they harm the interests of the community. They have said that thought should only be limited-this is indeed the whole theme and spirit that infuses John Stuart Mill's essays, "On Liberty"-when it transgresses specific and identifiable individual interests.
That is the principle which liberals have followed through the ages; the principle not that an expression was abhorrent, not that it was offensive, not that it was in bad taste, not that it went against standards of decency, but that it transgressed specific, identifiable, concrete, individual interests, not a vague, outlawing expression of opinion in one category, but a transgression of specific individual interests. Even in those circumstances, as Mill suggested, liberals have held that the advantage to society of having free expression of views greatly outweighs the rather minimal interference with an individual's interest which could occur with the expression of free thought.
The whole liberal belief has been that the wellspring of social progress lies in allowing people to express all their views, bizarre, wicked and pernicious though they may be, because they have believed that "truth is not put to flight in a free encounter," and that it is on this truth that social progress is dependent. Once we start to say that we can outlaw one set of ideas and prevent their expression because we consider them to be so abhorrent to us, or a sizable group in our community, it is very easy to go on and to find other views which are also abhorrent and to consider that these, too, shall be ruled out of discussion and
April 7. 1970

out of free expression. Indeed, that has happened, as I have just said, many, many times throughout history.
The liberal principle has been that you do not create sacred cows beyond the realm of discussion and contestation, and that when you create sacred cows you are weakening the foundations of liberal democratic society. Liberals have believed our society is strong enough, calm enough and tolerant enough that dark thoughts should be brought out and dealt with in the light of day through debate and discussion. A democracy which has lost faith in the judgment of its citizens has lost faith in itself. That is essentially what this legislation says to us. It says we do not have sufficient confidence in the judgment of our citizens that they will look upon these pernicious ideas for what they are and assess them correctly. We have so little faith in their judgment that we will prevent these pernicious ideas from being expressed at all.
I have not lost faith in the judgment of our citizens. I do not find in this proposed legislation a practical approach to dealing with what prejudices there are in our society. Moreover, it confounds and attacks a basic principle of what I believe liberal society should be. I cannot as a liberal, in conscience, support this legislation and shall, therefore, vote against it.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, the speeches we have heard in this House on this bill make it clear that this is a matter upon which men of good will and good sense can very well differ. I want to rise and oppose the amendment introduced by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Wool-liams) as a wrecking amendment and I think it was no doubt intended as such. It emasculates the bill, make no mistake about it. It is impossible to be for the amendment and for the bill. One cannot enjoy that intellectual luxury.
True, the amendment will leave the genocide provisions in the bill in effect, but the major provisions of the bill are to be struck out if the amendment succeeds. These major provisions, may I remind the House, seek to put under the ban of criminal law the deliberate propagation of racial hatred. We have heard many praise liberalism and freedom of speech, and I concur with everything that has been said in that regard. I say there must be some reasonable limit and the limit is exceeded when people deliberately use propaganda for racial hatred.
22218-8J
Hate Propaganda
The amendment was commended by the hon. member for Calgary North, in his usual forceful eloquence, in the name of freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and freedom of the press. It is my view that if any legitimate concept of freedom of speech, assembly and the press was affected by this legislation I would be the first to reject it and vote with him for the amendment. I do not believe this to be the case.
As the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) said so well yesterday, freedom of speech has always been subject to limitation. Indeed, I venture to assert that it is the right as well as the duty of Parliament to limit freedom of speech where to permit it would permit a clear and present danger of social evil. I agree with all those who say we must be vigilant to see that the words used in legislation of this sort are not so vague or so ambiguous as to prevent not only the evil aimed at but also to prevent legitimate expression of opinion, distasteful and critical as it may be.
I ask what does this bill do and I see very little in common between it and some of the remarks we have heard in the House on the bill. I am not referring to the genocide provisions. Proposed Section 267B(1), as has been pointed out, deals only with statements in a public place likely to lead to a breach of the peace. Who shall say that it is not the duty of any rational Parliament to restrain that type of conduct? It has been restrained from time immemorial and it should be restrained by law again.
What does proposed Section 267B(2) do? It deals with statements calculated to promote hatred, not in private conversation, but calculated with deliberate intent to promote hatred. If there is any fear amongst people that perhaps these expressions could be used more broadly, proposed Section 267(B) provides for defences. It provides a defence for truth; it provides a defence for religious argument; it provides a defence for fair comment on matters of public interest.
My submission is that the committee succeeded in putting this in clear, narrow, specific and strict language to deal with a clear and calculable evil, the promotion of racial hatred, which is not within the ambit of free speech in a civilized society. Surely, we are not to be deaf to the tragic lesson of history which is that evil men can and do exploit latent hostility or even ignorant hostility for their own purposes.
Hate Propaganda

April 7. 1970
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
I wondered when I listened to some of the speeches in this House in support of this bill whether the people had read the Cohen commission report. There were full and ample illustrations and examples of material which could only be explained as the deliberate propagation of racial hatred, palpably unfit to be disseminated in a democratic society, which could not by any stretch of the imagination fall within the ambit of free speech as understood under our traditions. Much has been said and much no doubt will be said*- and it is suitable that it should be-against pollution of our air and water. There is such a thing as polluting and poisoning the minds of men. This is a tragic reality. It is an historic fact that we in this generation have been able to see for ourselves.
It has been said that you cannot legislate to make men good and that you cannot strike down attitudes of mind. I suggest that is not entirely a sound statement. Legislation is clearly an educative factor. In this very field of racial discrimination, provincial legislation representing the conscience of the community has expanded human rights in respect of discrimination in real estate deals, in providing accommodation, in employment and in other fields. This has had an educative effect upon our people. Legislation will not make us perfect, but it can help to mould public morality.
I wonder if those who are fearful of this bill have considered that equivalent legislation is being passed in all the advanced democratic nations of the world. Great Britain, the so-called mother country which has a great reputation in this field, has, perhaps reluctantly, passed legislation similar to this. The Scandinavian countries are at a similar stage and countries with a long and honourable tradition of freedom are almost unanimously ready to pass legislation of this sort. Should we discard the wisdom of these people and say we alone need nothing of this sort? It is said, and rightly so, that the law is one thing and morality another. No doubt there is a great gulf between the realm of public law and private morality. But to assert that law is not an important embodiment of public morality is simply without foundation. Criminal law does and should express a consensus of public morality.
This legislation is very important. It does not deal with non-existent fears but a very real and tragic evil that the history of this age has shown to exist, even at this very moment, when such hatred and racial dis-
[Mr. Brewin. i
crimination are obsolete, odious and disastrous. Mr. Speaker, I urge the rejection of this amendment because I believe we would be doing a disservice to a sound concept of what is involved in freedom of speech if we turned down this legislation. The amendment is commended in the name of freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and freedom of the press. I believe we would be doing a disservice to a sound concept of what is involved in freedom of speech if we turn down, by a false cry of freedom of speech, a reasonable limitation upon that freedom of speech imposed in the public interest by this bill.


Mr. J. E. Walker (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, about six years ago I had the privilege of standing in this House and supporting a colleague who is no longer here, Mr. Milton Klein, the then member for Cartier. I supported and seconded his motion in respect of a private member's bill dealing with the type of situation which is now covered by a government bill. I felt it would be important to remember what my colleague, Mr. Klein, did during the private members' hour in the form of a private member's bill to bring what I call a great social problem to the attention of Parliament and this country.
I do not suppose there is any piece of legislation on any issue that has received greater thought over a longer period of time. As has been stated in this debate, the principle involved in the original private member's bill received consideration at various stages. It was discussed in committee. It was before the Senate twice and was before the former committee on external affairs. My friend, the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin), played a very active part in the proceedings before that committee. I am sure he will remind me if I am not correct when I say that I believe there were very lengthy hearings at which briefs pro and con were received from many people, and at which time people who did not have closed minds appeared as witnesses. These witnesses were people who understood the great social implication of what we were endeavouring to do. The government of the day decided that this question was important enough for the government itself to accept the responsibility of placing this legislation before us.
I wish to congratulate this government, and particularly the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner), for taking the responsibility of bringing this matter before us for our consideration. I do not think I have listened to any
April 7. 1970

debate in which there has been less acrimony and less personal vindictiveness, such as we sometimes see in this House. I have been very pleased with the debate. I certainly accept the sincerity of all the opinions expressed. However, as a Liberal-and 1 address this particular statement to my friend across the way in the same party who feels he cannot support the bill-I fully support this bill. I have been fighting for such a measure for the past six years, as have a number of other people. Up until now many of the contributions have been made by members of this House who, by profession, practice law. I have had the feeling we are getting bogged down in the legal technicalities of the bill. Once this legislation is passed, if the House sees fit to pass it, the matter of the legal application of it may end up in the courts, where I suggest the points of law should be argued rather than in the House of Commons.
Along this same line, may I say that the other day I read some comments by the economist Galbraith about the way to battle inflation. He suggested one of the difficulties in respect of what we are doing now is that the experts, the professors and economists, are the only people who are having their say. So, today I stand here not as a professional person but possibly as a representative of the man on the street. I believe it might be helpful to hear from the man on the street in respect of this legislation.
In 1966, the Toronto Daily Star sent out reporters on the street to interview ordinary Canadian citizens about this matter. I would like to place the result of this interview on the record. No matter what type of a law we pass in the House of Commons, or what type of law is recommended by the law officers, I have a feeling a law is good only if it is accepted by the public. There are many laws on the books these days that are observed in the breach much more than by compliance. It makes a ridiculous situation when we have laws that are not observed, possibly because public opinion and the ordinary good, common horse sense of the man in the street have not been taken into account when the laws have been drafted.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
In this particular interview, the question was asked:
Should free speech be allowed in public parks-?
I want to put these answers on the record because there are a lot of hon. members who have made contributions who have been
Hate Propaganda
wondering about the cut-off point at which free speech is no longer free speech because the purpose of it is to destroy the freedom of other people. Here is a lady, Mrs. Sadie Denley, a housewife, who says:
I believe in freedom of speech-as one's right under democracy. But the line has to be drawn somewhere when inflammatory speeches tend to incite the crowd to riot and violence, resulting in harm to someone. It is only sensible to exercise some restraint over speeches.
Here is Harry Jackson, a salesman, who says:
One's first reaction to any kind of censorship, particularly in speech, is to think of a police state. One should be free to voice opinions in what one believes. But to carry this to the point of accusing a certain person or race, colour and creed, or condemning them, goes beyond freedom of speech. This is downright unacceptable to any intelligent person.
Here is Norman Thornley, a salesman, who says:
When a speech tends to insult one's religion, race or colour, whether of an individual or collectively, in a public park or anywhere, then it constitutes slander. Preventing this kind of speech isn't censorship. It's just a sensible, legal restraint.
Here is Bill Graham, a sales representative, who says:
As with any privilege, it can be abused.
He is speaking of freedom of speech.
No one has a right to a freedom that would permit excessiveness that results in violence, destruction and harm. This constitutes an attack on society. And preventing this extreme does not constitute censorship.
Here is Harold Nissenthall, a company employee, who says:
Every individual should be allowed to voice his feelings and opinions. But singling out some individual or group, and hurling abuse and insults at them, can never be regarded as coming within the legal claim of freedom of speech.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker and colleagues, that the opinion of the ordinary man in the street, the man who does not perhaps understand the technicalities of law but does understand some of the social problems and social evils we have in our society, is equally valid and may be more important than some of the technical legal arguments that we have heard in this House of Commons today.
Not because it was a particularly good speech but because it went to the centre of my thinking, away back in 1964 as a matter of fact, I would like to quote from a speech which I made in the House of Commons at that time. I would like to say that, in my judgment, these people who are able to spread hatred because of the present lack in
55S0

April 7, 1970
Hate Propaganda
the law have in their hands a time bomb, a poison vial, that can really be more destructive of our society and our human relations than possibly a military bomb.
On that occasion I said:
These enemies of society, these wreckers and destroyers of other people's lives-
Because that is what they are.
-use freedom of speech to destroy other freedoms equally important-
Perhaps freedom from fear should be considered to be a right of Canadians equal to freedom of speech, and also freedom from persecution. Hate propaganda racists are people who are so bitter in their hatred that they blame other people for their frustrations, and the next step most of them take is to use democracy to destroy democracy. They use freedom of speech for themselves to destroy the freedom from fear of other people.
The racists always use these methods. Surely the persecuted, the good citizens-
I am taking this out of the context of talking only about one group, a minority of people in this country. Canada, Mr. Speaker, is a country of minorities.
Surely the persecuted, the good citizens, deserve the same sympathy and consideration and freedom which apparently exists under the present laws for the rotten racists and their followers.
Surely, the good people have a right to the protection of some law that the absence of law now gives to the racists.
These.. .unbalanced bitter people are using our laws to make fools of us all.
We are in a new era in a troubled time, Mr. Speaker. We are in an era of great disturbance in societies all over the world, and I believe we have to achieve a new dimension in human relations if society is going to hold together. I cannot think of any country better equipped than Canada, that has so few of the problems bothering other societies in the world, to encourage the establishment of good human personal relations as an example to the rest of the world of what a liberal, open society should be doing.
Violence and the threat of violence endanger our society. They endanger the peace. We must counteract within the framework of the law the racists who are here. They are in our midst. They are here to disturb us. As I say, we must counteract within the framework of the law these racists, otherwise violence as a principle has won out over law as a guiding principle upon which a civilized society should be based. If we have no laws now to

protect the basic right of people to live undisturbed, unthreatened lives, then surely we must make those laws. As individuals we cannot take the law into our own hands, although I can imagine and I know of instances in this country and in other societies where people driven to frustration because they do not have the protection of the rest of society, reach the point where they say, "Nobody will protect us. There is no law to protect us; therefore we must take the law into our own hands." One does not have to look very far from the borders of our own country to see where this sort of thing is taking place. I would think that a very small step at this time, by way of a very mild law, may preclude the necessity in the future of something that would be abhorrent to us all. I refer to the passage of some law that would have authoritarian strength in it of a kind that we would not want.
We cannot take the law into our own hands or we would destroy the very thing we are trying to produce, a country and a world of peace and order, in which we may all live lives of creativeness and purpose without the fear of having our freedoms destroyed. And, Mr. Speaker, all I ask is the same protection, the very same protection for the good people in this country, for the non-racists in this country, for the decent majority of citizens in this country, as presently exists for the racists who are apparently determined to destroy our Canadian society. I will certainly be supporting this bill.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the amendment that is before the House. I do so for a number of reasons, some of them already aptly expressed by the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Roberts). In passing, I must say it was interesting to note the differences in opinion between the hon. member for York-Simcoe and the hon. member for York Centre (Mr. Walker).
It is all well and good to go out and interview people on the street about a proposed piece of legislation designed to limit the freedom of speech, and ask them whether they like it and whether at any time freedom of speech should be limited, but we cannot place much reliance on the opinions that are gathered that way when the persons interviewed have not had the intent of the bill explained to them. It really lends very little weight to the argument used by the member for York Centre (Mr. Walker).
April 7, 1970

[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
I have nothing against the provisions in the bill which outlaw genocide, and I suppose nobody will find fault with that aspect of it, but the rest of the bill gives me a great deal of concern. We can talk about guarding freedom of speech, but we must of course accept the responsibility that goes along with all our freedom. If in this piece of legislation we must place some limits on the freedom of speech, are we not really just getting out of accepting responsibility for doing so? I think we are. We are shelving our responsibility by saying that the society in which we live will no longer accept responsibility for its acts and, therefore, we have to legislate control. Surely, in this country we have not gone that far, though some people may believe that society is slipping. This piece of legislation might be justifiable in some of the underdeveloped countries where there is a tendency to create ha'red, riot and violence and so on, but as one of the better educated countries of the world surely we have not slipped that far. Surely, with our level of education, we are above that.
The bill attempts to define hate literature in this way:
"hate propaganda" means any writing, sign or visible representation that advocates or promotes genocide or the communication of which by any person would constitute an offence under section 267B;
Now, section 267B is the one that worries me, Mr. Speaker. It reads:
Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group-
I ask the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) or any other member of this House, through you, Mr. Speaker, what would have happened if a bill like this had been in the hands of some of the governors in the southern United States who were faced with people trying to bring about better conditions? Would these people not have been accused of inciting riots, inciting acts of violence and hatred? Would the governors not have used legislation like this to confine and regulate the minority? I do not want to name any of these governors but we have seen them on television and have had them here in our country. We have seen their attitude to some of the justifiable uprisings that have taken place, and here I am going back to the beginning of the recent upheavals in the United States six or seven years ago. What would a bill like this have done, and how would it have been used?
Hate Propaganda
Many members have said that this bill will never be used. If the person who may use it is fair and broadminded, then no harm will come from it. In trying to protect minorities, we may well be harming or limiting the expression of thought of those minorities. I cannot emphasize this point too much. When we think of the uprising in the country to the south of us, and I am thinking of some of the southern states where there has been an uprising of an identifiable group for a justifiable purpose, a bill like this could have been used to control the measures taken to bring about social change and better conditions.
One of the good things that may come out of this bill, Mr. Speaker, is that it may limit the CBC, something which nobody has been able to do. Nobody has been able to limit what we see on our television screens. Some years ago the leader of the Nazi movement in the United States, as I think it was called, a Mr. Rockwell, was brought to Canada. Had this bill been passed then, I suppose he could have been accused of promoting hatred in a public place. I am sure the television screen could be defined as such. One could say the same of Stokely Carmichael and some of the other agitators on the North American continent who are brought to this country from time to time by the CBC. So perhaps, Mr. Speaker, one good thing that will come out of this bill is that somebody somewhere will place some control on the CBC. That is a very negligible amount of good to come out of a piece of legislation which could otherwise be so very harmful, which could disrupt and divide a relatively united country. People who have worked side by side and fought for social change are divided on this legislation. Some say it is not necessary and some say it will never be used. Why bring it in if it is so poor?
What are the benefits of this legislation and how is the application of it going to affect the man on the street? Well, he is going to be limited. The committee changes subsection 2 of section 267B and added "other than in private conversation". I suppose this means that one has to be talking to more than one person, but it still does not mean that one can say what one wants to two or three people in one's own home. The effect, therefore, is limiting to that extent and changes the whole principle of our legal system. This afternoon Your Honour suggested that it creates equality in the eyes of the law; I think Your Honour saw a lot more in the bill than I do. I think it changes the whole concept of our law

April 7, 1970
Hate Propaganda
that a man is innocent until proven guilty. If a man is accused under this law he is automatically guilty and then has to use the defences provided in the measure to justify his statements or publications. If in using these defences he can prove that the statements were absolutely true, he is not guilty but it is up to him to prove it.
Section 267B (3) reads:
(b)	if, in good faith, he expressed or attempted to establish by argument an opinion upon a religious subject;
This means he could use the defence that he was only expressing the idea to promote discussion and argument, that he did not believe what he said. I suppose he could get around the charge that way. I believe that defence would make it very difficult to convict anybody who had good legal advice.
Section 267B (3) (c) reads:
(c)	if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true;
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
I suppose one could incite a riot if one thought it was for the public good. I watched television once and saw a member of the Ontario Legislature, Stephen Lewis, interviewed. He as much as said, "Riots are all right; a little violence does not hurt. Sometimes it brings about change, and that is good for the country." He more or less said that on television. Clearly, he was indicating that violence was in the public interest; that it was good for the public. This is a matter that is dealt with in subparagraph (c). I ask, were the people who attempted to burn the Murray Hill garage acting in the public interest? True, they were not an identifiable group, but violence and hatred were certainly displayed in their actions. One man was killed.
To me, this is poor legislation. What is the aim of the Minister of Justice? In which direction is he leading Canadian law and our legal system? I am no lawyer, but having looked at the defences set out in the bill I can safely say that it is a good thing the Minister of Justice is not in practice and attempting to defend someone who has contravened the provisions of this bill. I do not think a practising lawyer would have introduced a bill like this with so many weaknesses and loopholes.
Subparagraph (c) reads in part:
-and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true;-

If charged, I suppose I would have to convince the judge and jury that I really believed my utterances were true. I would then say, "I am sorry Your Honour; I thought my utterances were true, but I now realize they were not true. Please do not convict me." I suppose a lenient judge might say, "I believe you had reasonable grounds for believing your utterances to be true and, as a result of your defence, the court cannot convict you." I should get off scot-free. Will this bill not benefit the so-called martyr, the real kook who advocates violence and who puts out hate literature that is directed against an identifiable group? Will passage of this bill not mean that the would-be martyr will gain a platform for the dissemination of his ideas? There will be court cases which will be reported by newspapers, and the would-be martyr's utterances and hatreds will be fully reported. That is the type of person this bill will benefit, the person who wishes to become a martyr, who wishes to be tried in order to secure that publicity which will further his views in our society.


An hon. Member:: An example being the Chicago Seven.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Yes, the Chicago Seven. Subparagraph (d) reads in part:
-if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred towards an identifiable group in Canada.
What that means it is hard to say. The bill is weak because the defences enumerated would allow 'almost anybody to escape the punishment he may or may not deserve. As I say, passage of this bill will mean that would-be martyrs will be assured of newspaper coverage of their trials. They hope thus to publish their views. Really, no man will be convicted under this bill unless he, himself, wishes to be convicted. To my mind, the bill will limit the workings of the CEC, benefit the would-be martyr and do little else for the good of our society. Surely, we could better spend our time in this House promoting better education and better understanding instead of promoting existing divi:ions.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Because that is what the bill does; it promotes existing divisions. It says there is no cure for them and therefore we will penalize anyone who tries to create divisions. That is a very negative way of thinking, and a surprising way of thinking for the
April 7. 1970

Minister of Justice who I thought at one time was rather forward thinking.


Gerald William Baldwin: He is contaminated by his colleagues.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I urge the Minister of Justice to withdraw the bill. It ought to be withdrawn; and the reprinted version should include the clause respecting genocide, but nothing else.


Mr. Mark MacGuigan (Windsor-Walker-vi'.le):: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Muir (Cape Breion-The Syndeys):: I see
the government has 'at least one supporter.


Mark R. MacGuigan: I should like to think that there are some supporters of this bill on the opposition side as well. With respect to the sum total of the arguments which have been made for the amendment and against the bill, I must say that, while some of the arguments have been cogent, many, I fear, have been specious. As the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) said last night, they are sophistical arguments.
A few minutes ago the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) raised the question whether certain kinds of riots would be exempt from the provisions of the bill. The defences he referred to are not defences to offences under the public order section; they are defences to offences dealing with the distribution of hate propaganda, and there is no such question which really 'arises as a result of this particular bill.
I trust the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) will not object if I single out his address for particular attention. I believe it is fair to say he was the official spokesman for the opposition on this subject. In his speech yesterday he referred many times to the words "ridicule and contempt". Of course, the tradi'ional common law phrase with respect to criminal defamation was the phrase "hatred, ridicule and contempt". I am sure all hon. members know that the word "ridicule" was dropped by the Cohen Committee in its wording respecting the new offence of group defamation. The word "contempt" was eliminated by the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs during its deliberations. The only word that remains of this original common law triad is the word "hatred". Therefore, the references the hon. member for Calgary North made in his rhetoric to ridicule and contempt are, I submit, beside the point.
Hate Propaganda
He also referred to the speeches of Kennedy and King. I am not sure which Kennedy he meant. In any case, I would suggest that he would be hard put to find statements by those men which are incitements to hatred. Men like Kennedy and King do not need to resort to hatred, do not need to resort to attacks on another person who is a member of the natural groups protected under this bill, in order to make their points adequately. Nor need anyone resort to such attacks in order to carry on the kind of dialogue which is necessary in a democratic society.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Will the hon. member permit a question? I did not say these men were either professing or promoting hatred. But would he not agree that it was because of hate-it may have been paranoic hate-that Robert Kennedy was assassinated?


Mark R. MacGuigan: I agree, and that is the very type of hate this bill is attempting to curb.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mark R. MacGuigan: A substantive argument, although I am not sure that it is more substantial, is that with regard to selective protection for groups. Selective protection is not unknown in the law, Mr. Speaker. The Canadian Bill of Rights, which was originally sponsored by hon. members who now sit in opposition and which was heartily endorsed by hon. members on this side of the House, selects, among the rights it will protect, the freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and so on. It does not put on the same level the equality of the sexes, the right to privacy and the liberty of employment.
The question is not whether there is selective protection, but what is the basis of the selection. We should know that the protection is not, despite some of the comments which have been made, proposed to be given to groups. The protection is to be given to individuals in their capacity as members of a group; it is to be given to individuals who may be attacked because they are members of a group. The whole thrust of this legislation seeks to protect individuals in a way they were not protected at common law and in a way they were not protected by statute previously.
After all, Mr. Speaker, in earlier centuries we did not have the same consciousness of groups that we now have. We did not realize that what might be said about a man, his group capacity and his membership in one of

April 7, 1970
Hate Propaganda
these basic groups, could hurt him just as much as a comment that was made about him directly as an individual with reference to his own individualizing characteristics.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
The selectivity of protection of this bill is its very strength. The basis of this selectivity is to protect a man in his membership in those groups which are most natural and most basic to him, the groups to which he belongs almost by reason of his very being. As the history of mankind shows, group membership has produced the greatest degree of hatred throughout human history. This is the basis of the protection and the selectivity of the protection which this legislation attempts to give. This selectivity is its strength.
Another argument made by the hon. member for Calgary North deals with the adequacy of the present Criminal Code. The hon. member referred to section 60 and the sections immediately following which deal with seditious libel. I submit that this argument and his reference to the Boucher case reveal a misunderstanding of the focus of this legislation with which we are now dealing in comparison to the traditional sanction against sedition.
Sedition is a concept which has to do with the relationship of the individual and the state directly. It classifies as undesirable conduct certain kinds of agitation by individuals which is directed against the government and attempts to overthrow the government or, in earlier days, the person of the monarch. This is not the purpose of this legislation. This legislation is not directed to protecting the government, but to protecting other people in society. It is directed to protecting some of the weaker and more vulnerable people against those who may attack them. It is not an attempt by the government to protect itself. The focus of this legislation is not the same as legislation dealing with sedition. The comments made respecting the Boucher case, I submit, are not applicable to the present legislation.
Another example of the supposed adequacy of the Criminal Code is section 64 and the sections immediately following, culminating with the proscription of unlawful assembly in section 67 where it requires for proof of an unlawful assembly, an assembly of three or more persons with an intent to carry out a common purpose. In order to establish guilt under this section, it is necessary to prove

that at least three people came to a meeting with a common purpose. That is not always possible to prove.
A third argument was made. This argument, I believe, raised very basic problems about the bill and whether or not, as the hon. member for Calgary North argued, it is crisis legislation. I submit it is not crisis legislation. It is problem legislation. It is not crisis legislation because it is not extreme. The hon. member for Crowfoot attempted to demonstrate how weak the bill is because of the breadth of the defences. Without agreeing with his interpretation of the bill, I say if this bill errs, it errs on the side of favouring free speech.
It is not crisis legislation in the sense that it is not stringent legislation. It is far less stringent than the Race Relations Act in Great Britain which allows no exculpation of the conduct which is condemned. It also is not crisis legislation because no one who is supporting the bill is talking about a crisis in this country. We do not have a crisis. Like most other countries in the world, we have a problem and, like most other countries in the world, we need legislation equal to that problem.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: What's the problem?


Mark R. MacGuigan: The hon. member asks, "What's the problem?" I will review some of the facts set out in the committee report. The current hate campaign which that report refers to began in early 1963 and continued on to about 1966 or 1967, when it lay quiescent for a short time before it again sprang up. This campaign was carried on in eight provinces of Canada. It was perhaps carried on in the other two provinces as well but we do not have the same type of public evidence with respect to them.
I will not deal with all of the instances. They cover about four or five pages in the report of the committee. I wish first to draw to the attention of the House the situation which existed in the province of Ontario. The first distribution of hate materials began in April, 1963 in the city of Toronto. There was hate distribution in July and September. In October, there were four instances; in November five instances, and six instances in December. This was in the year 1963, before the campaign gathered momentum.
As examples of some instances of distribution of hate literature, I wish to quote examples from 1964. The report reads at page 20:
On January 15, five hundred leaflets entitled "Special Bulletin" were picked up by an apartment
April 7, 1970



administrator from tenants mailboxes in apartment houses along Don Mills Road, Victoria Park Avenue and Eglinton Avenue East in Toronto. The leaflets all had special "hate" messages typed on the reverse side.
At page 21 it reads:
On September 7 and 8, the dates of the Jewish New Year, one of the most solemn of Jewish religious holidays, a green card was received in the mail by many members of the Jewish Community in Hamilton and Toronto. The card, mailed from Toronto, depicted a Jew fleeing a large swastika, and contained the words "Thith ith the end".
On February 19, 1965, it was reported that hundreds of anti-semitic leaflets were found strewn in cars parked on the main streets and in parking lots in North Bay, Ontario. Others were reported found in the doorways of retail shops.
Some of this circulation was through the mails. Other distribution was by placing them on the streets, in shops and by hand in apartment buildings.
In Quebec there were instances of distribution in 1964 and 1965. There were instances of distribution in 1964 and 1965 in British Columbia. In Alberta, a certain amount of hate literature distribution occurred in December of 1964, in Calgary. In Saskatchewan, in April of 1965, a number of pamphlets were mailed from the Vancouver branch of Natural Order to residents of Saskatoon. In Manitoba in September of 1964, several pamphlets, including one entitled "Communism is Jewish" were mailed to the principal of a high school and others in Winnipeg.
There was distribution in New Brunswick in 1965. Pamphlets were mailed from Freder-iction, New Brunswick, to people in Moncton and Saint John. In 1964 in Nova Scotia a number of pamphlets were mailed to people in Dartmouth. This is a brief summary of the distribution of hate material contained in the report of the Special Committee on Hate Propaganda. This recital ends with the completion of the committee's work in the fall of 1965. I have not had an opportunity to complete a similar survey of all the instances of hate literature which have been distributed since that time.
I wish to refer members of the House to several other kinds of events which occurred in Toronto. After the founding of the Canadian Nazi party on April 20, 1965, these incidents occurred by way of reaction to attempts to distribute messages of hate. I will illustrate that, in matters of this kind, the reaction is something which the law has to take cognizance of as well as the actual commission of the offences under the present criminal law.
Hate Propaganda
After the founding of the Nazi party in Toronto in 1965 and the setting up of a headquarters, a Nazi rally was called at Allan Gardens on Sunday, May 30. A crowd began to gather about noon, although the meeting was not called until two o'clock. By that time there were about 5,000 people in the park. When John Beattie entered the park he was immediately spotted by members of N3 Fighters Against Racial Hatred and was tackled, kicked and beaten before police could rescue him. A mob of about 500, many carrying sticks and clubs and shouting "kill, kill, kill", also chased and attacked a number of youths believed, in most cases wrongly, to be nazis. Fifty policemen eventually restored order and arrested nine men, including Beattie. Because of a lack of time, I will not go into all the difficulties which the Toronto City Council had in grappling with the problem as to whether to grant permits for meetings in the park.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
On July 25, after he had been twice denied a permit to speak in the park, Beattie and seven other nazis attempted a silent protest march through Allan Gardens carrying a swastika banner and two green maple leaf flags. As the nazi group marched into the park, two mounted policemen rode on either side. Suddenly, a small group of about 20 men jumped up from park benches, rushed the Nazis and beat them with fists and with their own flagpoles. A further incident occurred in 1966 when, as a result of a change in the park rules, Beattie was able to obtain a one-hour speaking permit for Sunday, June 5. He arrived at about 2.10 p.m. and walked through the park surrounded by police. As he began to speak, the crowd, estimated at 4,000, closed in on him, but mounted policemen pushed the spectators back and ringed Beattie for the rest of his speech. A similar meeting on Sunday, June 19, led to a near riot. Although the crowd, numbering about 1,200, was smaller than on June 5, its mood was uglier despite the presence of some 200 policemen. Beattie's halfhour speech dealt almost exclusively with Jews.
There is one further incident of this kind to which I should like to draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, before coming to a conclusion. On the night of July 6, more than 1.000 angry anti-Nazi demonstrators jammed Nalhan Phillips Square in front of City Hall to denounce the city's free speech policy. Marchers included many victims of nazi persecution in Europe. The conclusion I should like to

April 7, 1970
Hate Propaganda
suggest after this recital is that when there is a manifest lack of provision in the law, a manifest injustice with which the law is unable to cope, people are tempted to take the law into their own hands. Indeed, in some of the cases I have cited the temptation was too strong for them to resist; an enormous problem was raised for those responsible for law enforcement in Toronto as crowds of between 4,000 and 5,000 took part in nearriots, creating scenes almost beyond the control of the police in attendance.
This summary of events in Toronto illustrates the effect which a persistent hate group can have on the public life of a large metropolitan area and, what is perhaps even more important, the depths of passion and the extent of opposi.ion which can be aroused by way of reaction, especially in a community some of whose members have had first-hand experience of nazi tyranny and inhumanity. It also brings to light the difficulty of handling such a situation through legal means, especially at the municipal level. The Toronto City Council, in the absence of a law adequate to control the activities of the nazi speakers, tried to handle the situation by preventing speakers from using Ihe parks, in other words, by preventing people from speaking before they had been given a chance to air their views. It is one thing for a law to impose liability on people after they have spoken, but prior restraints are anathema in a democratic society. Yet even knowing this, and probably agreeing with my view, the city council acted as it did because it felt it had no choice in its attempt to deal with the crisis situation which arose at that time.
problem, one which we should not attempt to measure only in terms of its quantitative influence. This is primarily a qualitative problem. The real threat arises because material of this kind can, because of its cleverness, its subtlety, affect the thinking of people, leading them to accept views to the detriment of their neighbours which they would not otherwise hold.
Such literature corrupts the majority, but more important still is the danger in which minorities are placed. Social psychology has shown us clearly that the effect on minority groups of constant subjection to hatred and prejudice is etxremely destructive. We are seeing the effects in the United States today in the growth of movements such as the Black Panthers. These are movements toward self-assertion. In other areas, the result is a feeling of unworthiness and withdrawal. Not many studies of this kind of thing have been made in Canada, though a number have been completed in the United States. However, I noted recently a report of a study conducted on an Indian reserve in western Ontario which supports the conclusion that Canadian Indians have a negative self-image. This thesis was based on a study conducted among small children, in which the children showed a preference for dolls of a colour other than their own.
Hate propaganda, like prejudice of all kinds, is destructive. It is destructive of the majority because it corrupts the majority, and it is destructive of minorities because it can place minorities in a position where they are made to feel unworthy.
I should like to say a word, now, about the anti-Jewish messages which were available over the telephone in Toronto last year. I do not present this as being an extreme kind of threat because, obviously, a person had to call a particular number before he could get the message. Nevertheless, the fact that people can indulge in this kind of attempt to hurt other members of their community proves that the spirit of hatred is still abroad in some of our cities.
Since the hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys (Mr. Muir) is present in the chamber I will also refer to the hate material to which he drew the attention of the House earlier in the year. It is clear that hate mater5 al has not vanished from this country, and that its distribution continues.
The situation does not constitute a crisis, though there have deen crisis situations in Toronto. What we are facing is a serious



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles)-Social security-Inquiry as to tabling of white paper; the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas)-Industry-Criteria for payments to automobile companies; the hon. member for Elgin (Mr. Stafford)-Agriculture-Prince Edward Island-Grants to establish tobacco farms vis-a-vis anti-smoking campaign.
April 7, 1970

It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, public bills.


Mr. Forest:: There have been discussions between various hon. members, Mr. Speaker, and I believe there would be general agreement to our proceeding to item No. 4., Bill C-37, in the name of the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Haidasz).


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS


Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Parkdale) moved: that Bill C-37, respecting disclosure of names of drug addicts, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
He said: Mr. Speaker, in introducing the second reading of Bill C-37, I should like to preface my short remarks by saying that no current social illness is more threatening today in our country than that of drug abuse. The abuse of drugs and its consequences can be disastrous to the mental, physical, social, moral and economic health of individuals. The drug abuse problem affects not only individual drug users but also their families, friends, employers and their country. The great challenge that the drug abuse problem poses today is one which we legislators must face and to which we must also strive to find solutions.
I welcome this opportunity to bring to the attention of all hon. members Bill C-37, the purpose of which is to prohibit the publication of the name of the person so charged without special leave of the court, so that, among other things, a distinction can be made between the addict and the drug pusher.
The concept underlying this bill maintains that publishing in the newspapers the name of a person charged with possession of narcotics, including the non-narcotic drug marijuana, tends to destroy the character of the
Drug Addicts
accused, who is often a teenager. It tends to destroy the careers of students and other persons, adversely affects their families, and makes rehabilitation more difficult.
The federal government is now endeavouring to learn more about the drug abuse problem in our country by the establishment of a federal inquiry into the non-medical use of drugs. This will enable the government to learn more about the drug abuse problem so that adequate and sound legislation may be enacted as soon as possible.
In perusing literature on the drug abuse problem, statements and recommendations made by experts in this field urge lighter penalties, especially for offences relating to marijuana which should not be classified as a narcotic. Spokesmen for the Ontario Alcoholism and Drug Addiction Research Foundation have stated that, generally speaking, the creation of opportunities for lesser penalties for illegal possession as opposed to trafficking of various drug substances is a move in the right direction. It is believed by these experts that in the long run we legislators should seek to transfer drug abuse problems from the realm of criminal offences to the realm of treatable health conditions.
The traditional response whereby legal control mechanisms alone are seen as the only way to solve these problems is inadequate. I should like to quote, to prove this point, a few paragraphs contained in the brief of the Canadian Medical Association entitled "NonMedical Use of Drugs with Particular Reference to Youth", made public in November 1969:
One area of increasing agreement has emerged: the continued disdain of marijuana users for punitive legislation has forced us to re-examine the justification for and consequences of laws which treat the misuser of any drug as a criminal. Growing numbers of prominent individuals, committees and organizations are now demanding a more realistic approach, through restructuring of the drug laws, more accent on education, intensification of research, and provision of diagnostic and treatment facilities. It has become obvious that existing laws have had little influence on the spread of marijuana use and that to impose a criminal record on a young person for simple possession is self-defeating and often destructive. In Canada, within the past 12 months, many concerned groups have passed on resolutions to the federal government recommending that simple possession of marijuana be no longer treated as a criminal offence punishable by imprisonment.
The Drug Habituation Committee of the British Columbia Medical Association concluded that "the harshness of the law outweighed the probable danger of marijuana itself and that the rigid application of the law would likely give rise to social ills exceeding those inherent in the uncontrolled use of the drug itself."

April 7. 1970
Drug Addicts
The brief goes on to mention other statements by experts in the British medical journal The Lancet, in the article written by Dr. Yolles, director of the United States National Institute of Mental Health, and others. All of them point to the fact that the present criminal law is too harsh on people who are charged with possession of certain narcotic drugs, including marijuana.
This is why I have introduced Bill C-37 in this House. It will give all hon. members an opportunity to express their views on the two clauses in the bill, which propose to prohibit the publication of the name of the person so charged without special leave of the court so that, among other things, a distinction can be made between the addict and the drug pusher.


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, the bill before us is a good, neat bill. It makes one point and makes it rather well. I think it is an exciting and interesting bill, one that I intend to support. I know a great number of my colleagues are of the same opinion, and since there are probably a number of members who would like to take part in this debate I shall try to keep my remarks as brief as possible.
In the justice and legal affairs committee recently, the commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police advised us of the statistics relating to convictions for various offences connected with the non-medical use of drugs in Canada. Within the last year or two the rate has gone up 85 per cent over what was the average for the previous few years. So, I suggest it is pretty obvious that we are dealing with a rather substantial problem when we consider the number of cases involving drugs that come to court.
I think the sponsor of the bill made a very valid point, one that I think cannot be emphasized too much. He said that what happens to a person convicted of drug offences does seem, in today's circumstances, to be quite out of proportion. Careers can be ruined for the smoking of one marijuana cigarette. A career in the professions, for example, can be lost upon conviction of this sort of thing. Therefore, it is time that we looked at all the penalties that fasten on to the non-medical use of drugs and substances like marijuana.
The bill could, of course, have been wider in scope in this sense, but I would not want in any way to oppose it since it does deal with one particular point. This point is a good place to start. This afternoon I hope that the House will give second reading to the bill, if
(Mr. Haidasz.j
only for the purpose of getting it to the committee where this problem could be examined. Perhaps the sponsor would not feel particularly aggrieved if the bill did not come back or if the examination there were somewhat extended. However, somewhere along the line we do have to get our teeth into legislation dealing with the penalties which are imposed for narcotic and non-medical use of drug offences.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
The hon. member is to be complimented for suggesting a very practical measure, indeed. In the next year, of course, Parliament will be faced with the problem on a wider scale when the LeDain report is before us, and when the government has had a chance to suggest the measures it intends to initiate. But certainly the discussion in Canada which is going on now is a pretty important discussion, that is whether the narcotics problem is a criminal law problem or a medical problem. It has always struck me as absurd that any night in Canada hundreds or thousands of men are hauled in to local hoosegows and then the next morning brought into court for being drunk in a public place. To me alcoholism is part of the problem with which the hon. member is concerned in presenting in this measure. It seems to me more of a medical problem than one to be treated by putting people into dungeons or gaols, even the best of those. These are issues which will stir all Canadians. I was pleased to note that one province at least is not treating the alcoholic as a quasi-criminal, and I hope other provinces will follow that step.
I am glad that the hon. member, while he is not really taking a direct whack at the question of a criminal record for those who are caught for the non-medical use of narcotics, is at least seeing to it that they are spared public notoriety. I have some question as to the part of his formula which would allow, by special leave of the court, the names to be made public in the news media. I think that probably should be amended in some way because it should not be left too much to the discretion of judges who may have great sympathy for this problem or may have none whatsoever. That is only a very small, niggling issue in my mind.
By and large, I can support the measure with a full heart. I hope this afternoon it will be sent to the committee where we can start getting our teeth into this very large and worrisome problem in Canada.
April 7. 1970


Mr. Douglas A. Hogarth (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I find it very difficult to consider the bill of the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Haidasz), since it is so deeply related to the problems of narcotic addiction, marijuana, amphetamines, speed or what have you. I find little rationale in confining the measure to the non-publication of the names of the accused in cases dealing with narcotics.
To my mind, the principle that should be established in this bill, and I think it would be something worthy of consideration by this Parliament, is that the name of any person charged with any criminal offence should not be published until such time as that person has been convicted. If we are going to give credence to the doctrine of reasonable doubt, which applies equally to cases under the Narcotic Control Act as to the Criminal Code or any other criminal statute, that is that no one is deemed to be guilty until they have been proven so beyond a reasonable doubt, then it seems to me that no person's name should be published until after his conviction.
I think the hon. member for Parkdale is quite correct, that the mere laying of a criminal charge does a great deal to destroy the reputation and character of a person in the community. Very often the news item that the person has been charged appears, but sometimes no mention is made of the fact the person was acquitted at some subsequent date. This is particularly true when the case gets into the court of appeal after the original conviction. A bill of this nature might go a long way, if it were extended to cover all criminal offences, towards taking the sting out of charges against people when those charges are subsequently dismissed.
On many occasions it is not only the accused who suffers so far as defamation of his character is concerned. All of us who have practised in the criminal courts have seen situations where witnesses were subjected to far greater abuse than the accused himself. This can often be so in the very degrading sexual cases which we have been so unfortunate to have occur in our communities from time to time. There is nothing more difficult for a woman, the complainant in a rape case, than to be subjected to a strong and far-reaching cross-examination on the most intimate matters and the most distasteful subjects of evidence that can come before our criminal courts.
It might well be, as I suggest, that this bill would form good legislation. I am somewhat
Drug Addicts
surprised that the hon. member for Parkdale confined his remarks to young people, because the bill does in substance apply to any person, as it should. I know the hon. member has in mind the provisions of the Juvenile Delinquents Act which prohibit the publication of the names of young offenders who are processed in the juvenile courts. The report on juvenile delinquency that was prepared some years ago by the Department of Justice dealt with this particular subject and expressed the thought that this practice should not only be clarified, because it is not too clear in the present act, but that it should be extended. The report reads at page 140: Under the Act the ban on identification of the child is addressed to "newspapers and other publications". Doubt has been expressed as to whether this prohibition extends to radio and television. These doubts should be removed and the legislation should indicate clearly that identification of the child through any media whatsoever is prohibited without special leave of the court.
The hon. member for Parkdale knows that the report of the Justice Committee on Juvenile Delinquency supports the principle of his bill. What he is doing is extending it to adults. I think that is a very good thing. From time to time in our criminal courts the press have been asked by the presiding judge not to print the name of a particular witness or a particular person, and the good press of Canada have certainly obliged the judge by refraining from so doing.
I am a little concerned with the provision in the bill relating to getting special leave of the court. I cannot conceive of any situation where an accused person should have his name published if he does not wish to have it published. There are situations where it might well be that an accused person could find witnesses in his favour if his name were published. I think the bill would be better framed if it applied only to cases where the accused gave special permission.
In closing, I hope the hon. member for Parkdale will have the time to consider the bill I have pending, Bill C-154, which would also prohibit the fingerprinting of accused persons, before their conviction, under the operation of the Identification of Criminals Act. I think both in respect of my hon. friend's bill and the Identification of Criminals Act, this Parliament might well look very seriously into the way the law can, on occasions, abuse innocent persons. I look forward some time to debating more extensively those problems in respect of narcotics, but I do not believe that subject is really germane

April 7, 1970
Drug Addicts
to this bill today. I would not want any of my remarks to be construed that I did not think the bill was important and something which should be given consideration in the very near future by this Parliament.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)


John Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Haidasz) is to be commended for bringing forth Bill C-37. The purpose of this bill, as stated, is to prohibit the publication of the names of the persons so charged without special leave of the court; that is, charged with possession of narcotics including marijuana. The sponsor of the bill, by profession, is a doctor. I am sure he has had wide experience in respect of the non-medical use of drugs by persons and also wide experience in respect of alcoholism. I note from clause 1 of the bill that the reference is to any person who is charged with possession. Possession certainly is the most common charge with regard to drugs. There is also, however, the charge of selling and trafficking. Experience has shown that many people charged with selling drugs or trafficking in drugs are drug addicts. Therefore, possibly this legislation does not go far enough since it does not include people who have been charged with selling drugs and trafficking in drugs. As the hon. member has stated the publication of the name can cause a great injustice in respect of the person charged and possibly, as the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Hogarth) said, the witnesses who are attendant at the trial.
During the last session similar legislation was brought forward by a former member from Montreal, Mr. Klein. His bill was referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. At that time, some experts in this field gave evidence. Their evidence was excellent. I thought that possibly the government would act upon some of the recommendations made in the report of the committee in respect of that bill. Unfortunately, however, this government does not appear to want to act too quickly. We now have a situation in which many young people charged with possession of marijuana and other drugs are suffering the result of convictions when they seek employment, bonding or wish to travel. Back in the year 1966, it was said in the district of Columbia circuit court of appeals that alcoholism should be treated and not punished. That principle has been applied in some of the states of the United States. In Europe, a more enlightened view is

taken in respect of the problem of alcoholism because it is said this is really the third largest public health problem that prevails in countries today.
In Europe, and in parts of the United States, intoxication centres have been established where a person who is intoxicated is taken either by the police or by a friend. He is sobered up there and then when he has sobered up he is permitted to go home. If he should be an alcoholic he may need further treatment, and if so would be referred to another centre where he would obtain proper treatment. In other words, he is not looked upon as a criminal but as a person with an illness which should be treated. If we were to use that analogy of alcoholism in respect of the drug problem, surely we should be setting up drug centres across Canada so that a person who is in the throes of illness as a result of taking a drug could be treated before any charge is laid. As I recall the legislation proposed by Mr. Klein, it was indica'ed that when a person is charged with possession of a drug he should be brought before the magistrate. The magistrate should then suspend the hearing and either persuade the accused to take treatment voluntarily or involuntarily if necessary.
There are different types of treatment for the drug problem. Indications are that many of these have been highly successful. Once a person has been treated, then he could be returned to the court in which he had been charged. If a person were charged with possession of marijuana and it were the first offence resulting in no ill effects, surely an enlightened Crown counsel would then ask the magistrate, based on the report he received from the drug centre or hospital at which the person had been treated, to drop the charge. This would be an enlightened approach. If the report from the drug centre indicated that the person needed further treatment, and that there had been prior convictions in his case, then the charge rather than being dropped could be delayed to be brought forward at a later date, say six months, a year or even 18 months later. In other words, the case could be adjourned sine die so that the person could be further treated and tested. This is what I would like to see done, because then we would be treating the drug addict in an enlightened way. We would be treating an illness rather than punishing a person for possession of drugs.
I think all of us have known persons charged with possession of a drug who have
April 7, 1970

been convicted of the offence. The problem in respect of the RCMP and other police forces with regard to a conviction is rather difficult because possession is not the easiest thing to prove. The RCMP have been quite assiduous in pursuing the problem. The drug addict is at times most ingenious in disposing of the drug. This has put the RCMP on the alert in respect of obtaining the evidence concerning the drug charge. The result has been a growing bad relationship between the drug user and the RCMP. One would hope the relationship between the police and the person who has committed the offence would be a proper relationship. Unfortunately, as a result of this particular offence and the difficulty of obtaining the evidence necessary for a conviction, there has been a bad relationship between the police and the offender. I might say that the treatment of many young people who have been charged today with possession of marijuana has left a great deal to be desired. The result is that their attitude toward the police and law enforcement officers generally has not been a healthy one. In fact, their abuse of the police at times has been unwarranted but nevertheless they justify it because of the attitude of the law officers.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
We have before us legislation concerning the obtaining of a pardon in respect of a criminal conviction. Many hon. members of the House, particularly those who sit on the Justice and Legal Affairs Committee, have been disappointed with the government's bill concerning pardons for people convicted of a criminal offence. Many hon. members feel that bill should go the full way. Many are afraid of the word expungement and would prefer use of the word annulment. Be that as it may, I do not think we have gone far enough with regard to erasing the convictions of certain criminal offenders.
The Ouimet Commission recommended that any person charged with a summary offence should have the conviction erased after a period of two years, and that any person charged with an indictable offence should have the opportunity to apply for an annulment after a period of five years on proof of good behaviour and rehabilitation. The bill presented by the Solicitor General (Mr. Mcll-raith) does not go far enough.
Many high school and university students have been convicted of possession of drugs. What they did was dare to take a chance with regard to drugs, the same way as many of us in our young days dared to take a chance
Drug Addicts
with regard to alcohol. Our problem was alcohol, not drugs. Convictions against these young persons weigh heavily upon them and their prospects for future employment, bonding and travel. It is not my intention to dwell on this subject, however, Mr. Speaker.
The hon. member for New Westminster raised a question concerning the necessity of publishing the name of any person charged with a criminal offence, and suggested widening the proposed legislation to prohibit publication of offenders' names until such time as their offences had been completely dealt with by the courts and judgment passed. I hope this bill will pass. I hope hon. members on the government side will not adopt their usual method of talking it out. I think it should be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs where we can go into it more deeply, where we can call expert witnesses to give evidence so that we may develop new legislation not only based on this bill but on the report of the LeDain Commission on Drugs, and thus be foremost in legislation dealing with this grave social problem.


Mr.   Georges-C. Lachance@Lafontaine: Mr. Speaker, it is well known that ever since my election to the House, I have always taken a special interest in the problem of the rehabilitation of prisoners and all those people who have had a run in with the law, have been found guilty, are serving time or have been released, or who have found it difficult to readjust socially and take their normal place in this world.
The principle of the bill proposed by the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Haidasz) is highly commendable, and we should congratulate the hon. member for bringing home to us this extremely serious problem of divulging the names of drug addicts.
Following in the footsteps of the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert), I must say that I would like to see the scope of this bill greatly widened. A few years ago, I had the opportunity of introducing a bill whose objectives were much more far-reaching. Among other things, I had proposed that not only the names of the accused but those of the witnesses not be published in a criminal case, because I feel that this does not give anything, does not facilitate rehabilitation and enables certain media to publish exciting articles. Besides, the family of the accused suffers needlessly. And when those people have paid their debt to society, they find it

April 7, 1970
Drug Addicts
that much more difficult to return to the outside world and contribute to the country's economy.
Now, I will speak of those who are condemned and of those who are acquitted. We know that they are branded forever, whether we want it or not. I just happened to read today in a magazine an article which said of someone that he or she had been indicted but later acquitted.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
I will not disclose any name. Indeed, a great number of people are prosecuted, even if we are told that they are acquitted, something always remains. If the names of the accused and witnesses are not disclosed by the news media, those who are acquitted will not suffer as much. Evidently, it is easier afterwards to rehabilitate those who have been found guilty.
The bill now under consideration mainly deals with the problems of drug addicts. If the government would decide to take a first step in that field, conditions would improve. Indeed we are increasingly hearing about the problem of drugs, whether they are hallucinogens, marijuana or something else.
We deplore the fact that teenagers, once condemned, get a criminal record. I do not intend to deal with criminal records because I believe we will soon have an opportunity to do so when the bill which is now before the committee is reported to the House.
A few years ago, I introduced a bill to eliminate criminal records but I will surely have an opportunity to talk about it. Besides, the government will bring forward a bill to this end and there will even be a possibility of legalizing the sale of some drugs.
Actually, the names of those who are arrested or convicted of using or possessing drugs are made public by the various media. I think the government should immediately take steps so that at least the accused are spared the publication of their names.
According to the bill, the court would have the power to decide whether the names should be published. With all due respect for the opinion of my colleague from Parkdale, I feel the court should not have this right. I can see no reason for publishing the name of a defendant or a witness.
Anyone may be called upon to appear in a case. If someone has witnessed a murder, his name is published in a newspaper and broadcast by radio or television. Even for the innocent witness to a murder, something will

always remain on record. The same rule should be applied not only for preliminary hearings, but also in the case of Royal Commission inquiries which may lead to criminal proceedings being brought. In such a case, the names of witnesses and of defendants should not be revealed.
Those, in short, are the remarks I wanted to make. I am in favour of the bill. It is only a first step but I hope that if it goes to the committee for study amendments for the purpose of not leaving to the court's discretion the special right of deciding whether the defendant's name will be published will be brought forward.


Mr. F. J. Bigg (Pembina):: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-37 is touching on a very important question, the use of drugs, presumably by young people. The policeman is the young person's best friend, whether or not he is accepted as such, but he has a very unenviable task; he tries to protect young persons not only from themselves and their immaturity but from the worst type of criminal, the drug pusher.
Although I have the greatest sympathy for young people who fall into the drug habit, I do not know how they are to be protected unless we are pretty tough on the people making fortunes of the filthiest kind by pushing drugs to young people. I am in sympathy with the spirit of this bill which is trying to protect our young people from gaining a bad reputation and help them on the road back.
When a young person is out on a prank and is found in possession of one marijuana cigarette at a dance or some such place, perhaps the law is a little overeager in wanting a conviction at the present time. This is just the smallest link in the chain of conspiracy of the unhealthy and very serious drug racket. We have to be careful about who we are trying to protect, and the bill must be specific in this respect. When the bill says "any person", surely it does not mean a man already convicted of several offences of pushing drugs. Surely it does not mean a young person who has been given a suspended sentence, allowed to return to his normal routine and later found to be passing drugs in large quantities. Are we to believe that we are trying to protect such people? Perhaps I am being technical, but I think the bill should specify exactly who we are trying to protect and under what circumstances.
April 7, 1970

[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
The person caught smoking his first marijuana cigarette should certainly be protected with regard to publication of his name.
I doubt whether any magistrate, if it was within his power, would do anything except put a boy like that on suspended sentence or remand him in the custody of his parents with the understanding that if no more drugs were found nothing more would be heard of the matter. I hope that in cases like these the press will use discretion and keep the name of the boy out of print. Certainly, if the long arm of the law catches the pusher or the person helping him, I would not expect the press to extend the same discretion.
The bill does not mention age. I suggest there should be a great difference in the way boys of 16 and under are treated and the way boys between 16 and 18 are treated. Any person older than 19 years-after all, we say these days that boys of 18 ought to assume their civic responsibilities-should experience the full rigour of the law. The law should deal very severely with persons of 18 or 19 years of age who ought to know that pushing drugs on young people in this country and elsewhere is a very serious offence indeed.
I do not think we need look abroad and see what is happening in other countries, although it is interesting to note that in several countries the offence of drug pushing carries the death penalty. In those countries the sale and use of drugs has dropped off dramatically. This includes drugs such as marijuana. Whether marijuana is a dangerous drug, I do not know, although I notice the bill lumps all drugs together. I am thinking mainly of marijuana in my presentation. The evidence about this drug is conflicting. I am not at all sure, Mr. Speaker, the possession of more serious, hard narcotics is a matter that should be treated lightly. I think the bill should spell out whether possessors of marijuana should be treated differently from possessors of hard drugs.
The person possessing a drug may be the only link in a long chain leading back to the drug trafficker who is really dangerous to our society. I would go along with any method of protecting the reputation of young people who for the first time have innocently come into contact with drugs. Even if charged, their names and addresses ought to be withheld, at least until the time of the trial. I do not think such young people ought to have their names smeared unnecessarily. If a person is convicted, that is different. Boys
Drug Addicts
falling within the age limits I referred to ought to be protected, even if they are convicted. On the other hand, when the pusher of drugs is apprehended, the more publicity given to his being engaged in this most notorious of trades, the better. On this point I cannot go along with the spirit of the bill.
I agree with the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert) who suggests the bill is very important and ought to be referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs. Expert witnesses could be called. I should like to see witnesses from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police drug squad called. They are responsible for protecting our young people and could give guidance as to how we might protect them from using drugs on the campuses, on the beaches and elsewhere. If there were liaison between our young people and the ROMP and our young people realized that the ROMP wish to protect them, we might be more successful in tracking down drug traffickers who are the real criminal element in our society and who must be apprehended as soon as possible.


An hon. Member:: Question.


Colin David Gibson: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Haidasz) for presenting this thought-provoking bill which has brought on such an interesting debate today. It is fair to say that the issues involved in the bill involve rights related to the freedom to publish news. This bill seeks to protect the reputation of individual citizens. It refers to persons charged with possession of narcotics, which includes marijuana.
I think there is a fundamental difference between narcotics such as morphine and heroin, which are terribly damaging and very harmful socially, and marijuana, the possession of which is against the law but which is not in the same category as the harder drugs. I think a line ought to be drawn between misdemeanours and what might be termed less serious offences, and more serious offences and that the names of persons charged with less serious offences ought not to be published in newspapers or mentioned on radio and television. On the other hand, the press and other news media should enjoy their full freedom to report cases involving hard narcotics. That is why I say there is a great deal of merit in giving this matter more study and consideration.


Mr. Ricard:: Question.

April 7, 1970
Hate Propaganda


Colin David Gibson: Those of us who are lawyers have often found ourselves on the horns of a dilemma. Sometimes a man comes to us who has been charged with impaired driving.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hour set aside for the consideration of private members' business having expired, I do now leave the chair until 8 p.m.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of 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).
Mark R. MacGuigan: Mr. Speaker, I have almost finished my remarks. I fear I have also just about completed the time allotted to me. I wonder if I might ask the indulgence of the House to continue for a very short time.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mark R. MacGuigan: In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words with respect of arguments adduced by my colleague, the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Roberts), with respect to the amendment and to the bill. My colleague said that the thrust of liberalism over the centuries has been toward liberty. I agree of course that the thrust of liberalism has been toward liberty. But liberalism is not a one-sided philosophy; it is for equality and security as well as liberty. Indeed, it might be argued that the very purpose of liberty is to enable the achievement of equality and security in our society.
My colleague quoted the great liberal philosopher John Stuart Mill to the effect that legislation should be enacted only when there is a situation that transgresses specific and identifiable rights. I submit that is precisely the situation before us. We have specific and identifiable human rights which are being

transgressed. These rights have not been previously recognized by law. That is the purpose of this change which is being made in the law. The offence of group defamation is one which has not been recognized by law until now. This is a new law which will recognize this human right. It is not a sacred cow, as my colleague suggested; it is a sacred right of the people of this country.
My colleague also suggested that the effect of this bill would be to drive hatred and hatemongers underground. If that were the case, I submit the purpose of this bill would be fully achieved. This bill is not aimed at thought; it is aimed at speech and conduct, especially speech which goes toward unlawful conduct. If we could succeed in driving hate and hatemongers underground, we would succeed in ridding the democratic dialogue of our country of this cancer.
This bill is aimed at establishing minimal standards for public debate. I stress the word "minimal". It is not a bill specifically aimed at protecting either the minority or majority group in our society. In practice it will undoubtedly normally protect the minority because the minority, as the weaker members of our society, comprises usually the groups which are attacked. Occasionally it may succeed in protecting the majority. This does not disturb me. If members of the minority behave in such a fashion that they depart from the minimum standards of debate which we believe are necessary in this country in order to protect the interest of groups-not the interest of the government but the interests of citizens in our society who can be attacked by reason of their group membership-or if members of either minority or majority fall afoul of this new legislation, so be it. The purpose of the legislation will be achieved if we achieve minimal standards of public debate which eliminate the dregs of discussion, discussion which would spew forth hatred at groups.
In my opinion this bill represents a great step forward in the law. It represents a new sophistication which deals with an old problem which we have newly realized, one of great social dimensions. I support the bill. I cannot support the amendment.


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to say a few words on Bill C-3. We have before us in this House a bill which is still more tangible evidence of the direction in which we are being led by the present orientated government. We have still more evidence that any legislation
April 7, 1970

presented by this government must steer across the board and encompass, not only the actions of all citizens but thoughts and
statements that are a substance of a free society.
I cannot accept the view put forward by the government that Bill C-3 is a necessary piece of legislation. Like any other reasonable, compassionate individual, and as a representative of the people in our Parliament, I put myself on record as being in favour of any effort by any individual or group that would promote good will. I would heartily support any effort to remove from our society the causes of hatred and distrust. Mr. Speaker, I would even go so far as to endorse the spirit of this bill in so far as it makes it a crime to advocate the extinction of any group or segment of our society because of race, colour or for any reason. I do not believe that any group in this country is in danger of extinction by genocide, but I would be willing to erect any reasonable safeguards that would ensure that this could never happen here.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
It is a paradox, Mr. Speaker, that the only real requirement for legislation such as Bill C-3 would be to protect the people and the very Parliament in which we sit against encroachments by the government that proposed Bill C-3. Our society is made up of individuals first of all. Any measures designed to protect groups within a society must take into account that the individual is paramount. Our fundamental and basic concern for the individual did not come about by chance or accident. It was bought at great price and sacrifice by all the generations that came before us. It was bought with the efforts and the pains and the ministrations of our founding families. It was bought with the blood of our patriots. And it has been tempered with the wisdom of past generations of great Canadian parliamentarians. In short, Mr. Speaker, the preservation of the sovereignty of the individual might be called our principal reason for being.
I would be the first to agree that society, any society, must have form and body and substance. I would be the first to agree that it would be impossible for any society to survive in an acceptable form if it did not recognize the requirement for order and for protection of the rights of citizens from conspirators and demagogues. However, Mr. Speaker, within the framework of an orderly and lawful society we must also have the
Hate Propaganda
greatest possible guarantees, within reasonable bounds, that the rights of the individual will remain the paramount consideration of government. I would add here that the principal task of the opposition in this Parliament is to guard against incursions on individual rights by our present government.
Bill C-3 in its present form is far too restrictive and its wording is open to too many interpretations. This makes the intent of the bill too restrictive and far too punitive. I want to come back to that point later, the part of the bill that lends itself to such a loose interpretation of peace officers and jurists.
I mentioned that the intent of this bill is too restrictive; there are insidious overtones in it which should not be taken lightly. When laws are too restrictive, when laws are too oppressive, it becomes impossible for the individual to fit comfortably into his environment. The best way to encourage contempt for the law is to make laws which show contempt for the individual. In such situations the laws are often disregarded and in time patterns of contempt for the law will develop. When laws are too rigidly imposed and too rigidly enforced, the individual will strive to break out of his oppressive environment and revolutions are born.
I would like to return to what I called the intent of this bill, or at least the intent which is implied in the government's wording of it. The intent of the wording would appear to be a desire on the part of the government to venture into the realm of moral legislation or, more explicitly, of legislating morality. This is a strange turnabout when one recalls the insistence of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) just a year ago that the government was not interested in or concerned with the morals of the individual Canadian. I should like to quote from an editorial which appeared in today's Globe and Mail, as follows:
"The problem of trying to render synonymous law and morality is that we then come down to the question: Whose morality? Whose standards of behaviour? Whose sense of morality? Who is to determine the standard? Who is to attribute blame? Who is to say what is moral and 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."

misinterpretation and there will be such wide interpretation of them by all who are affected. Therefore, I support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) that this portion of the bill be deleted.


Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, it is my intention to support the amendment before the House if only because it emasculates the bill, which I think is the only way to treat the bill. Unlike some members who have spoken against the bill and see it as a dangerous, bad bill, I do not feel that strongly about the dangers that are inherent in it. I do not see the bill having any serious effect in regard to limiting freedom of speech in our society. My own feeling is that the courts will lean over backwards to make sure that justice is done and that the benefit of the doubt is given to those people who appear before them. Having said that, a person is not in a position to know how a judge will react or how the courts generally over the years will change.
From experience in society I would not think that freedom of speech would be seriously limited by the bill. My reasons for so saying are different from those of others who have spoken. My reasons are that the bill is really an impossible bill, that it is a foolish bill. It is all too easy to dismiss the problem of hatred by passing legislation. It is all too easy to pretend that we can cope with this serious situation in society simply by passing a piece of legislation after which everybody goes home and feels great, that they have done something about hatred, that they have struck a blow against hatred. This is an illusion, and one nobody should be under.
As a layman looking at the law, I see three general categories. One is the kind of law that everybody agrees must be passed because it is required for the safety of society. We must have laws to deal with murder, to regulate traffic, and so on, because society just cannot exist without them. Such laws meet with almost universal acceptance. This is really their strength; everybody in society agrees that these laws are necessary, and people give up part of their freedom in return for greater freedom as a result of the protection accorded them under these laws.
The second category of laws governs such things as fair employment and discrimination as it concerns housing. These laws are not 100 per cent effective and are frequently evaded. But they do serve a purpose. People in society state how they feel about these things, and to
Hate Propaganda
a large extent these laws are enforced, though not completely, because they are definite and specific and apply to particular situations.
We then come to the third kind of laws, laws that try to legislate morality. Experience in society shows that you cannot legislate morality. I see no evidence that we have ever been able to legislate morality. I suggest the law we are discussing here is this kind of law: it attempts to provide that people shall like each other, that people shall not say unkind or hateful things about other people.
Morality is a very difficult subject to deal with. First of all, morality changes from one time to another time. What is considered immoral at one stage may not be considered immoral later. There is also the question of definition. How do you define pornography- though I know we have attempted to? How would you define hatred, when you really get down to it?
My views are very subjective and I must admit are much influenced by my personal experience. My personal experience tells me a number of things. I am not unfamiliar with prejudice. I am not unfamiliar with how shattering hatred in society can be. During the war I had a chance to see the ultimate, fearful results of hatred. I was in Belsen very soon after the camp was taken by the allies, and the visible evidence was there to see. I wonder whether a hate literature bill would have prevented that sort of thing. I do not believe it would. I do not think that any hate literature legislation could have prevented the sort of thing that happened at that time.
On the other hand, I am also very fortunate, in observing how society has developed in my own time, to see how much progress we in Canada have made on the question of tolerance of one group by another. We live in a much changed society today. Our society is much different from the one I knew as a boy. Why is this so? After all, there were no hate literature bills during the last 20 or 30 years, yet these changes have taken place. They have taken place because of the lot of the people; their situation has improved tremendously. The causes of hatred have declined. The sort of things hatred feeds on have started to disappear; and this is really where hatred must be tackled. As a socialist, I feel that this is the only way we can abolish hatred. There cannot be freedom or security for any minority group unless there is freedom and security for everybody in society. But this cannot be rushed or hurried, and it seems to me that passing this sort of legislation is a grave error.

April 7, 1970
Hate Propaganda
As I said earlier, I do not think this legislation is dangerous, but I do fear complacency. With this legislation on the books, people in society will pretend to themselves that they have done something about the problem when in fact this is not the case; they have simply diverted their eyes from the problem. That is the greatest danger posed by this kind of legislation: it will prevent our coming to grips with the real causes of hatred and dissatisfaction in our society, and this is the real issue.
I know that we live in a very squeamish kind of society. We do not like to see ugliness around us. We apply a cosmetic to ugliness and pretend that it is not there. We try to push it out of the way, and this approach is very dangerous. It is better to see the ugliness fully exposed, where we can deal with it, than shove it off in some corner or paint it over with make-up, powder or rouge so that it looks prettier than it really is.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
We do a disservice to our society if we pretend that hatred and discrimination do not exist. My plea is for realism and for acknowledgement that these difficulties are still with us and have to be dealt with. I do not want to see anything done that will obscure the real diseases of our society. I am not interested in making people feeling more confortable. I want them to feel uncomfortable; I want them to be confronted by and to see this ugliness, rather than have it hidden. I am very worried that we will not get rid of hate literature simply by passing this legislation. What we will do is make it more subtle and perhaps more pallatable. Maybe we will stop it here and there and people will not be so terribly offended. But nothing really will be solved by doing this.
I think there is an increasing danger that the indefinable thing that we may call tradition or good will, which does not depend on the law but is part of our society-sympathy, if you will-will be lost to those suffering from hatred and will tend to support those disseminating hatred under the false notion that they are defending freedom of speech and the right of even the most vile minorities to be heard. There is this danger.
I want to speak from personal experience. I have been through numerous political campaigns. I do not think I have ever been in a political campaign where hate literature in one form or another was not used against me. Always my party worker would come to me with a piece of literature or a story that was

being spread around and say, "We have to bash this on the head and wade right into it. We have to stop it." I have always said, "No, because you cannot stop it." They have asked, "What is going to happen?" and I have always replied, "If people want to believe this sort of nonsense, this kind of junk, this scurrilous stuff being spread around, nothing you or I can do will make any difference. We have only one hope, that the people will see it for what it is. If they do not see it for what it is, we are lost anyway and what do you accomplish?" Either there is an element of decency, fair-mindedness and intelligence in society, or the ball game is lost anyway. You have to count on that. This approach has always worked and the element of decency and intelligence has been there.
In the last campaign, in 1968, all of us were aware of the kind of hate literature that was being circulated against the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). It was dreadful stuff. On the whole I think it helped to get him elected. I know that during the course of the campaign my party workers came to me with this literature and asked whether I was going to let these things be said, even though they were being said about an opponent. They would ask if I was going to take advantage of the situation. I repeatedly, during my campaign, had to divert from my own rather urgent need to consolidate my position and take a stand against hate literature because it offended the decency and intelligence of my people. We wanted to beat the opponent, but we did not want to beat him that way. The Prime Minister probably gained a measure of sympathy that he would not have gained had this literature not been spread around.
What do we gain by banning the worst forms of ugliness contained in such literature? We feel a little more comfortable-but is it worth it? Isn't it better to have it where you can see it and deal with it, where you can appeal to the intelligence of people? You can ask whether they are going to listen to this kind of stuff. You can ask whether it is not offensive to them. I would rather do it that way, and I think in the long run that is the way to do it.
I appreciate the feelings of people who have been discriminated against, particularly those who were subjected to the extreme form of discrimination found in concentration camps. You cannot expect them to be politically objective, perhaps the way I am trying to be at this moment, about hate literature. When they see something like this they are
April 7, 1970

reminded that it is not just an occurrence during an election campaign; it is an indication that their lives may be in danger. It is understandable that they would press the government and society to afford them some protection which would relieve them of the haunting fear of this recurring menace.
The question that must be asked is. Do we have to succumb to that plea, as legitimate as their fears may be? In some ways those who are looking for protection from hate literature may find that their insecurity is heightened as a result of the passage of this bill. Every nut, every crackpot and every lunatic will now have the opportunity of testing this legislation in court. They will seek prosecution so they can have their day in court. The type of person who is disposed of by the newspapers and the other news media have been discounted for what they are. They will now have the sympathy of the editorial pages. I would add that the editorial pages are unwisely and unnecessarily sympathetic, but that is the way of editorial pages. Every one of these people will now be able to be part of a cause celebre. If a court should sentence them to jail, they will come out martyrs. This will give them a status they do not deserve. It will give them a position to which they are not entitled. There is some danger in this approach and we have to be very concerned about it.
I made these brief remarks because I felt someone like myself should make them. I conclude by saying that in the final analysis the safety of minorities depends upon the good sense and the security of our whole society. You cannot protect minorities unless you change society and protect all of society.


Harold Edwin Stafford: Mr. Speaker, I shall speak but briefly on Bill C-3, if only to put on record that basically I consider it an unnecessary piece of legislation. I know of no minority group that is prejudiced by our social system as it exists today. I know of no threat to any minority group in our nation. If such existed I could readily understand the need for the passage of such legislation.
In a free society such as ours we can do anything that the law does not make illegal. Even the minister has not demonstrated the need for such legislation. He did say that the legislation would show the world our good intentions. I find it very unusual that we have to amend the Criminal Code to show the world that we have such intentions. It is idle to suggest that this legislation will prevent the commission of such crimes in the future.
Hate Propaganda
The existence of the legislation may do more harm than good in drawing attention to the possible existence of such crimes in our free society.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
The great test of this legislation will come, say, in ten years from now. If one looks back over such a period and finds no convictions, so much the better. But it will more than anything else show the lack of need of such legislation at this time. It is also difficult to understand the Attorney General being appointed the watchdog of this legislation any more than in respect of the other sections of the Criminal Code. Even though I see no need for such legislation at this time, the principle behind it is to be commended. I trust the need to use it never arises. At this time when more important problems face the country I would think that the last two days could have been better spent.


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to become involved in what I believe to be a very significant piece of legislation. In the first instance I wish to say I reject the amendment put forward by my own colleague. In keeping with my conscience, it would nullify the principle of the bill. The bill strikes at that which is of extreme importance, that is, the incitement or promotion of hatred. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I accept the bill in its entirety. I do not find it offensive, untimely or particularly dangerous.
I am not here to become involved in the niceties of the legal matters in respect of this bill, because I believe sincerely that all legislation no matter whether it stems from this House or from any other place is subject to comment regarding its workability. For some time I was a member of the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. The members of the committee were sincerely concerned with the bill in the first place, as I was and still am, and attempted to make to that bill the amendments they believed were necessary in order to make it workable.
If this bill should pass, of course it will be for the courts to give their judicial interpretation of a matter to which we have given deep and sensible deliberation. I am very concerned about the bill, but at the same time I appreciate the varied views of my colleagues. It seems to me there has been one theme running through the entire debate. Everyone seems to be for the principle of the bill-but! This "but" which continually came before me

April 7, 1970
Hate Propaganda
really had me concerned, because I cannot see how one can be so emphatic about being for the principle of the bill and then say "but".
I do not know whether the bill is perfect. Perhaps it is not perfect. Maybe it is contrary to the thinking of some of us. It may, on the other hand, be shocking. We as Canadians and parliamentarians must discuss this type of legislation. Perhaps this legislation would not have been necessary had we followed, as I indicated in my maiden speech, the advice of one Adele Florence Corey. I should like to quote from Hansard of September 20, 1968- but remember that when I first spoke in this House I was more nervous than I am now. As recorded at page 291 of Hansard for September 20, 1968, I mentioned what this woman had said a long time ago. I said:
She said that men should be judged not by the colour oi their skin nor by the way they fight, love or sin, nor by the gods they serve or vintage they drink, but by the quality of the thoughts they think.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: If mankind were prepared to accept that very simple principle, we would not have my friend stating earlier that in his wisdom he thinks we are wasting time because we would not have to be discussing this bill. But, Mr. Speaker, some people will not accept the principle I have just enunciated. It is not within their thinking. It is not within their moral fibre to accept that principle. I do not know whether there are many faults in this bill, but with all its alleged faults and with all the shortcomings that were expressed this evening and yesterday I sincerely state that it is a step in the right direction. It offers hope to the many people who have long suffered, the many people who have long been humiliated, and the many people who have long been ignored.
This bill offers hope in that it is an indication that someone is aware of the problem that actually exists, that someone is aware that inciting hatred toward identifiable groups is unacceptable. I ask this simple question: Is it good just to have this type of reasoning? We are concerned about a particular condition and we say it is unacceptable. Is this in keeping with our democratic principles? I suggest that what we are now doing, and have been doing for the past two days is good and is in keeping with the principles of democracy. Hate as expressed by some Canadians in our midst concerns me, and it concerned the Cohen committee. I should like IMr. Alexander.]
to read from pages 25 and 24 of the report of the special committee:
In the committee's view the "hate" situation in Canada, although not alarming, clearly is serious enough to require action. It is far better for Canadians to come to grips with this problem now, before it attains unmanageable proportions, rather than deal with it at some future date in an atmosphere of urgency, of fear and perhaps even of crisis. The Canadian community has a duty, not merely the right, to protect itself from the corrosive effects of propaganda that tends to undermine the confidence that various groups in a multicultural society must have in each other. The committee therefore concludes that action by government is necessary-
Let me revert to page 24:
The number of organizations involved and the numbers of persons hurt is no test of the issue: the arithmetic of a free society will not be satisfied with oversimplified statistics demonstrating that few are casting stones and not many are receiving hurts. What matters is that incipient malevolence and violence, all of which are inherent in "hate" activity, deserves national attention.
Not local, but national attention.
However small the actors may be in number, the individuals and groups promoting hate in Canada constitute "a clear and present danger" to the functioning of a democratic society. For in times of social stress such "hate" could mushroom into a real and monstrous threat to our way of life.
Therefore, the committee was concerned-a committee set up by Parliament. Hence this bill. Our fathers and our grandfathers, responsible as they were in their day, were also irresponsible. They were irresponsible for projecting and being preoccupied with notions of their fellowman, all based on myths-the Jew, the black man, people of colour and those whose names ended in "i" or "o". That was their way of life, Mr. Speaker. That was how things were done then. But it is changed now. Those types of attitudes are no longer acceptable. I believe that the thinking Canadian has been awakened by the truths slashing away at the myths, truths about hate, and he has gathered this information from the media in all forms. Because, Mr. Speaker, it is my considered opinion that hate disrupts our social, economic and political orders and structures and, most important, it can be extremely expensive. That, I know, has been brought home to us on many occasions in the past few years.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
I believe the vast majority of Canadians will accept the principle of this bill, as many members here do, except when they say "but". The Canadian people will accept the principle of this bill notwithstanding the
April 7. 1970

editorials and the lobbies. There is in Canada now a concerned generation that is aware of attitudes that can lead to no good as far as the ultimate destiny of Canada is concerned.
Let me refer again to the Cohen committee report, page 67:
The history of law and opinion as concurrent developments is replete with instances, as A. V. Dicey long ago indicated, not only where law reflected the state of opinion but where a fluid opinion was itself crystallized by law. This generation of Canadians is more sensitive to the dangers of prejudice and vicious utterances than ever before. Such public opinion, therefore, should now be prepared to crystallize these sensitivities, fears and doubts into positive statements of self-protecting policy-namely statements of law.
Statements of law, Mr. Speaker! This bill is not the first of its type. In Ontario we have the Ontario Human Rights Code, a codification of all acts on discrimination dating back to 1944, passed in code form in 1962 and administered by the Ontario Human Rights Commission. Let me read the preamble of the Ontario Human Rights Code, which I think all Canadians are interested in and in which they should be interested:
Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world and is in accord with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as proclaimed by the United Nations:
And whereas it is public policy in Ontario that every person is free and equal in dignity and rights without regard to race, creed, colour, nationality, ancestry or place of origin-
Such a preamble is equally applicable to the nation, Mr. Speaker. We have other such acts in our great land. This is not the first time an act has come before parliamentarians that had to do with conduct and attitudes. We have federal legislation such as the Canada Fair Employment Practices Act. Listen to a list of the provinces that are involved with all sorts and types of human rights legislation: Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Nova Scotia, Ontario, Prince Edward Island and Saskatchewan.
In the past two days we have been discussing guidelines for human behaviour as it affects man. This bill points out that which is unacceptable to the Canadian way of life. It is not a code for love. That is the red herring that is always thrown into this type of argument, that you cannot legislate love. No one wants anyone else to love them when it comes to this type of legislation. It is a code directed towards conduct, towards overt action. I respectfully state that the greatest 22218-
Hate Propaganda
force that should exist today is man's relentless pursuit of the attainment of better human relations between all peoples.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: But how do you do it, Mr. Speaker? It has been said that you start in the home. Well, how long have we heard this? Mom is supposed to teach junior to respect his fellow friend. Then when you cannot get it through the home, they tell you to go to the church. I do not want to get into the area of the church, but they say, "Go to church. The church will help you." When that fails they say we are supposed to have group discussions. When that fails then they say, "Leave it to education." I have heard all these things running through the debate all afternoon. Then, Mr. Speaker, last but not least we come to legislation. When all else fails with the good intentions of mankind and with the background man professes to have in Christian love and brotherly love, and that cannot arrive at the necessary solutions, I respectfully state it is my public duty as a parliamentarian to start thinking about legislation. .


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: That is why, Mr. Speaker, I do not know who is for this bill on the outside, but I am not particularly worried. I am not thinking of it as a politician, as a Progressive Conservative, or as a Liberal in the way that we have heard some hon. members talk. I am thinking about this problem as a man whose conscience is being affected, as a man who has some awareness of what it means to be a member of a minority group.
You cannot legislate love, nor can you legislate against prejudice. But, Mr. Speaker, surely you can legislate against the overt act of discrimination. I do not know whether this bill will work, but I hope it will. It can work in this area, in that it is a form of education. But it is a form of education the hard way. We could not get it the easy way, so we had to do it the hard way.
In the committee I listened to a discussion on the possibility of this bill backfiring on those it is attempting to protect. I got into the debate, into the questioning on that matter, because if this was a fact I did not want any part of the bill. I know the interaction, that is becoming more and more a part of our way of life, by those who are attempting to show society the wrongs that they have been affected by over the years. But I was advised, Mr. Speaker, that the minority striving for recog-

April 7, 1970
Hate Propaganda
nition, proclaiming their desire to become a real force in the mainstream of Canadian life rather than accepting misery in their insignificant tributaries, would be protected by the defences that were eventually written into the bill. But I believe, too, that the defences are also open to those who proclaim that freedom of speech is being affected. Mr. Speaker, all I can say is that I believe-this is just my considered opinion-the defences therein equally can protect freedom of speech. All I know is that when you start talking about freedom of speech and freedom of the press, sooner or later the dignity of man, the value of man, transcends freedom of speech and these matters must be protected by society.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
I do not know what the experience of my colleagues who speak about Bill C-3 has been, but I reflect on the name-calling, the frustrations, the rejections, the spite and the hate that have occurred in my life. I have been fortunate, but let me tell you that there are a lot of people not so fortunate. I do not want to point to any particular province but it does not take much imagination to think of the east. I know a little about the black man's position because I am black and proud of it. He has been abused; he has been confused.
Mr. Speaker, what does a mother say to her child who comes running home crying because his skin is black, or cries when he goes to bed at night because he is a member of a minority group? Does she tell him that freedom of speech is paramount? What does a father say to his family when, as a result of hatred and contempt, he cannot bring home bread in order to sustain life? I could go on and on, Mr. Speaker, with illustrations that would frighten a lot of people in terms of what hatred can mean, and how frustration can lead the people affected by it to believe that they are inferior and have no rights within society because those who are bigoted use hate propaganda to the extent that a man becomes possessed and believes it to be true.
What we are doing here is creating an atmosphere not out of crisis but out of a new awareness of what hatred could do to Canada. I should like to read from the Ontario Human Rights Code something which illustrates what I mean by creating an atmosphere. This was printed in 1967, and God knows it is applicable in 1970! On the back of the book is this statement:
The aim of Ontario's Human Rights Code is to create at the community level a climate of under-

standing and mutual respect, in which all our people of whatever racial, religious or cultural background-new Canadian no less than native bom-will be made to feel that all are equal in dignity and rights, that each is a part of the whole Canadian community, and that each has a rich contribution to make to the development and well being of our province and nation. Few will disagree that this is a prerequisite for the building of a truly healthy Canadianism.
Mr. Speaker, in conclusion I say that in my humble opinion Bill C-3 is a prerequisite of this mood, leading to a truly healthy Canadianism.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, in view of the speeches made today I think it a great pity that the rather disturbed young man who was in the gallery yesterday did not have the opportunity of hearing them. There have been many fine speeches on both sides of the House which have completely crossed party lines. Had he heard them, he might have had a different view of the purpose of this institution.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I might add that I hope the press gives the same prominence to some of the speeches made today as it did to the unfortunate and ill-informed remarks of that young man yesterday.
I think it is quite clear that there is not any member of this House in any party who does not agree with the principles and objectives of this bill. The only disagreement is on the means of attaining these ends. The objections seem to lie largely in one of the many sections of the bill, namely section 267A subsections 1, 2 and 3.
In this respect I think the bill is badly drafted because it not only attains the objectives that we all have in mind, but a few that were not intended, as has been ably pointed out by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) and other members on both sides of the House. This is what really concerns the members and it is the reason for the debate continuing as long as it has. Some of us are very much afraid that not only will the commendable and excellent objectives pointed out by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) be attained, but others less desirable will also be attained. We are always accused of wasting the time of the House by repeating arguments. I do not want to be guilty of that, although I feel that section 267A may create situations never contemplated when the bill was drafted.
April 7, 1970

I have another reason for wanting to speak on this bill. Other members have not hesitated to blow their own horns in this debate, so I should not hesitate to say that several years ago I was one of the first members to bring this matter before the House of Commons in a private bill. Other members, some of whom are still here, also brought it before the House. Apparently the government of the day did take some notice of members with private bills, the Cohen commission was established and today we have this bill before us.
I should like to deal in some detail with the bill which I introduced at that time. It might be helpful if the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) would take some notice of it. He never seems to take much notice of suggestions, but perhaps he would this time. The second time I put my private bill on the Order Paper it was Bill C-164 of the first session of the twenty seventh Parliament and appeared on April 4, 1966. I had consulted the legal adviser of this House, a gentleman with wide legal knowledge, Dr. Ollivier. I had suggested putting in a bill all by itself, but he advised me to present it as an amendment to the Criminal Code. The bill that I presented at that time had two clauses. They are very brief and I should like to put them on the record because I think they may be very helpful in this debate. The first clause reads as follows:
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
Subsection (1) of section 248 of the Criminal Code is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
'248.(1) A defamatory libel is matter published, *without lawful justification or excuse, that is likely to injure the reputation of any person by exposing him to hatred, contempt or ridicule, or that is designed to insult the person of or concerning whom it is published or that is likely to injure the reputation of any group of persons by exposing them as a group to hatred, contempt or ridicule by reason of their racial or national origin, colour, or religion, or that is designed to insult any group of persons by reason of their racial or national origin, colour, or religion.'
The explanatory note to the bill at that time was as follows:
This bill proposes to enlarge the Criminal Code definition of a defamatory libel, to include 'hate literature'. Because such literature is, in many cases, the expression of a sick mind, the bill further proposes that any person charged or convicted of publishing such a libel shall be placed under mental observation to determine whether he is mentally ill.
Before I read the second clause of the bill I should like particularly to note the remarks made this evening by the hon. member for
Hate Propaganda
Waterloo (Mr. Saltsman) who, along with other hon. members, took very much the same view I have taken, that those who promote hate literature and defamatory group libel are sick people and ought properly to be treated as such. At the time I introduced the bill originally, a series of rather indecorous events had taken place in the city of Toronto. A young man-I will not dignify his name by repeating it in this House-was creating racial disturbances. His attacks were aimed against the Hebrew people particularly in the city of Toronto. Because the authorities were using various methods in an attempt to prevent this, the lad became something of a martyr with some of the low-minded, the sick-minded and the ignorant. He became the object of praise and a leader, just as was Adolph Hitler at one time in Nazi Germany, as some can well remember. I think the hon. member for Waterloo put it very well: we do not want to make martyrs of these kinds of people.
Some years ago I had the opportunity, as had the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Hogarth), of being a Crown attorney. I well remember an incorrigible young man who kept appearing in the police court in my area. He was a repeater, and was charged with every kind of petty, and sometimes more serious offence. No one knew how to deal with him. He was sent to reformatory and came back a hero. His time inside his friends thought of as you think of chevrons on a sleeve. Every time he went to prison he attained a sort of good conduct stripe as far as his buddies were concerned.
After a little thought it was decided he would not be such a popular hero if he were treated as if he were ill and sent to the Ontario Hospital for observation. The strange thing is this: it seems that when people come out of that institution, to which they are sent when their behaviour is such that they may be retained as a guest for some time, they come out not as heroes but as objects of ridicule. That is exactly what happened in this case. My experience in this matter rather prompted the drafting of the second clause in the bill I presented at that time. It reads as follows:
The said act is amended by adding thereto, immediately after section 251 thereof, the following:
'251A. Where a defendant is alleged to have published a libel defamatory of a group of persons within the meaning of subsection (1) of section 248, the court, judge, justice or magistrate may at any stage of the proceedings remand the defendant, by order in writing, to such custody as the court, judge, justice or magistrate directs for oh-

April 7, 1970
Hate Propaganda
servation for a period not exceeding thirty days to determine whether the defendant is mentally ill; and where the defendant is not so remanded and is found guilty, the court, judge, justice or magistrate shall so remand the defendant before sentence.
I think that if a provision such as this had been included in the present hate literature bill there would be no danger of making heroes out of hate peddlers. There would be no danger of giving these people a lot of publicity if they were sent for a mental examination, which is what they ought to have. They would not come out of hospital and be heroes for the drug store-corner gang any longer; they would be objects of ridicule and contempt. To make the punishment fit the crime, I can think of nothing better for them. Believe me, Mr. Speaker, in my rather brief experience I have found this sort of thing works.
I know other hon, members wish to speak, and I do not wish to take up more time than is necessary. I think new section 267A, subsections 1, 2 and 3, may very well defeat the purpose of the bill. I think those subsections will accomplish a number of purposes we have in mind but, as I have already said, they may accomplish other much less desirable purposes.
This debate has crossed party lines. It is not becoming a party issue in this House. The cabinet may not think so, but the backbenchers on all sides of the House do. I think the Minister of Justice and his advisers might very well withdraw the bill temporarily, look at its drafting, pay attention to some of the suggestions which have been made in this House, and perhaps consider redrafting this clause so as to accomplish the purposes of the bill without leaving the loopholes which have been pointed out, which might endanger free speech and all the other things we have heard about. I hope the government does this.
One cannot impute motives to the bill, and very properly so, because no one really knows what is going on inside somebody else's brain. If the government refuses to pay attention to the suggestions made here, one can only assume that the reason for introducing the bill is that suggested by one hon. member, that it is presented largely for political purposes. It was given a great deal of windowdressing, trumpeting and fanfare, but it is clear that the same objectives could have been achieved by a simple amendment to the Criminal Code. The Minister of Justice is always telling us he wants to make further amendments to that document. If he had done 
just that in a simple way, without all these trappings, I think everyone would have appreciated it very much more and the amendment could have accomplished these ends.
I have found one thing a little unconvincing in the remarks of the Minister of Justice and one or two other hon. members of the House. When the Criminal Code amendments were before the House and we were considering controversial matters such as abortion, homosexuality and other things, there were many high-flown speeches saying that you cannot legislate morals and that morality does not come under the criminal law. That was how some talked out of one side of their mouths at that time.
Yesterday and today we heard similar arguments about the purposes of this legislation, but exactly the reverse arguments were used, namely, that morality does come under the criminal law, that this bill may point the way to how people should behave, that it may give guidelines to human conduct and all the rest of it. I find this peculiar double-standard of reasoning very hard to take. I am one member of this House who does not think morality can be legislated. I have never thought so from the first day I entered law school and had the benefit of the opinions of some eminent people in that regard, including the former Chief Justice who has just retired.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
I find it difficult to understand why people with considerable experience in the legal profession argue that morality can be legislated on one occasion and not on another. It is for this reason I find some of the arguments put forward in favour of the bill a little difficult to comprehend.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say I am in favour of the principle of the bill.
I think every hon. member in this House is in favour of it. However, I think the two sections to which I have referred should be redrafted. While I agree they may well accomplish the purposes of this bill, I fear they may also accomplish other objectionable purposes and open the door to those with evil intent who would twist the law for their own evil purposes, as we have often seen done in this country and in many other places. As I have said, I hope the Minister of Justice will pay attention to the many fine arguments put forward from both sides of the House.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Mr. Speaker, hate propaganda is an extremely important
April 7, 1970

subject. I am one who believes that you cannot fight hatred with hatred. That may sound strange coming from a man who spent most of life enforcing laws, some of them fierce but most of them humane. Although I am not particularly proud of a part of my life, I would do it again. I refer to the seven years I spent fighting the nazi regime in Germany. If we are to believe all that we hear, the nazi regime in Germany committed one of the most savage acts of race annihilation in modern times. I suppose if by legislation we were able to prevent that type of thing, we would be unanimous in supporting such legislation.
I do not think that any legislation can put down hatred-on the contrary. I do not think harsh laws reduce hatred. It is strange that in this Parliament when we are liberalizing the law pretty well across the board, we are rushing into a permissive society. In some circles it is no longer thought evil to peddle drugs to our young people. It is certainly not considered evil to partake of them. It is strange that we should suddenly find it necessary to put something into the Criminal Code which has been tolerated for a thousand years. In fact, it has been more than tolerated: it was fought for with all the vigour which it was possible to produce by the fearless island people and their descendants, particularly with respect to our law and parliamentary institution.
I think it is very dangerous to restrict freedom of speech, no matter how violent speech is, because there is a tremendous difference between violence spoken and violence acted. Sometimes I think violence spoken is a safety valve. Until recently in England freedom reached unprecedented heights at Hyde Park. I have stood in Hyde Park on a Sunday afternoon and listened to the speakers. Perhaps they were disturbed, perhaps not. Some very notable people spoke in Hyde Park, including Bernard Shaw. I heard someone say that the Queen should be eliminated from British politics. It was strange to hear this 25 years ago in Hyde Park. The English bobby walked up and down with his club. Although the fellow who was speaking was heckled, he was quite free to speak his mind. After a while he folded up the little stool on which he was standing, put it in his Cadillac or Rolls Royce and drove off.
Is there any place in the world where freedom is practised more than it is in Canada? I think not. One of the reasons is that we have an inherent desire for freedom and fair play. Whether we admit it or not, it is largely
Hate Propaganda
inherited and taught to us by those same island people, some of whom were my ancestors. My mother was born in Indian territory. She had only Indian children to play with. My grandparents and parents, aunts and uncles learned to know these first citizens of Canada well. They learned to love them and they passed that love on to me. In my family circle race tolerance is not discussed, it is practised. As far as I know, I am welcome in every Indian home in Canada and every Indian and Eskimo in Canada is welcome in my home. This is the only basis for a greater understanding of these people and their understanding of us.
My former leader, the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) did not try in the Bill of Rights to codify in detail the rights of people to speak. He took it for granted that we have the right to speak. I agree. Those who speak with prejudice and hatred in their hearts are more to be pitied than a homosexual, because a homosexual does not have any control. Ignorance can be controlled. We can learn to know the people who live in our country. If we learn to know them, we will learn to love them. No statute, no matter how fierce or wise, can substitute for human understanding and human love.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
I mentioned that I was a soldier. I know that in my human frailty I can be whipped up into a frenzy of patriotism, and I suppose I would fight again in defence of my home and my country. But I realize that most war is absolutely futile because it is based on hatred. As Nurse Cavell said when she was being led away to be shot for helping to free Canadian soldiers and send them back to the rich life here, "Patriotism is not enough". It was not until I reached the wrong side of 50 that I fully realized what she meant. Indeed, patriotism is not enough.
Being a soldier under arms is not enough. Being an officer of the law is not enough, whether you pound a beat or whether you sit on the Supreme Court of Canada, unless you carry into your private life, into your politics and into your relationships from Halifax to Vancouver a real sense of brotherhood based on love and understanding which can only come from meeting with people, working with them, serving with them and trying to know them better.
Sometimes the greatest heroes are not those who walk into machine-gun fire. Equal courage is shown by people of ethnic origin, many

April 7. 1970
Hate Propaganda
of whom I have had the pleasure of living with in Canada, who have endured insults from early childhood to manhood, enduring it in their home lives as well as in their public lives but showing by their tolerance that they are a good deal bigger than those who throw ignorant epithets at them. Many of these people-some of them have sat in this House- feel there is no need to codify something which warms their hearts every time they look at a flagpole and see our flag, whether it is the new one or the one they first learned to love and trust, the one that flew over our ports and over the ships which brought them here.
If I thought for one moment that passing a statute would reduce hatred in the slightest degree, I would vote for it. If I thought that any amendment to this proposed statute would reduce ill feeling among Canadians, I would vote for it. This is a question which crosses party lines: it does in my case. I am under no pressure whatever from my party to do anything but vote according to my conscience, as I intend to do, and I hope this is the feeling throughout the House. I just cannot give my support to what is second best-to trying to accomplish by laws, whether fierce or innocuous, when the alternative is to lead in a positive way along the path to friendship and better understanding.
As is often the case, we do not have a clearcut decision to make. We are sometimes offered a package deal and we are told it is not political sense to vote one way or another. I do not believe most members are attacking this problem in that manner. I do not believe this statute would ever be invoked by a government or by the law enforcement officers if they put their priorities into proper perspective. If there are people walking about who feel genocide is acceptable in the slightest degree, I claim they are sick; they need attention. This may not mean locking them up in institutions or putting the tag of mental instability upon them. It is a tag of ignorance. They, perhaps more than the victims of their evil propaganda, require our sympathy.
As far as I can see. nothing is to be gained by turning from hatred on the one side or spending time and trouble in arming ourselves to fight with imprisonment, fines and more hatred the very thing we should be attempting to attack with a great more understanding and wisdom than perhaps we now possess. So often it appears easier for us to grasp a weapon, whether it is the reeking tube or the iron shard, to settle our differ-

ences than to try once more by friendship and understanding to get through to the people we despise the most.
I find it hard not to hate people who preach race hatred, but as soon as I fall into that trap I am in a bottomless bog with them, and when one fights them on that ground there is no way of doing it except by getting down in the bog and wallowing there. Throughout recorded history men have resorted to violence. And how far have they got? With all our modern technologies, with all our provision for free education, with all our permissiveness to young people, allowing them to expand their personalities and to alleviate their pain with various drugs, with all our concern for family planning and better nutrition, with all the wonderful advances we have made in transportation, how much closer are we to the brotherhood of man?
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
These are matters we should think about. Instead of new or antiquated laws to bolster up what is perhaps an out-of-date Criminal Code, one we seem to think is inadequate in most of its aspects, we attempt in this session of Parliament-one that is becoming very liberal in many ways-by imposing penalties on people who are ignorant, undeveloped, who do not appear to have the ability to grow up mentally, politically, and certainly spiritually, to find the answer to this age old problem of brotherhood. I do not think this approach will work. I think I have the right to speak because I am nearing the age of 60, and if I have learned anything in my 60 years it is that violence begets violence, that hatred begets hatred, that misunderstanding begets misunderstanding.
In all the years I tried to enforce the Criminal Code of Canada and to make the world free for democracy, I saw more good accomplished by a few kind acts, by putting out the hand of friendship, by using a little human understanding, than all that the brass buttons, red coats and the arsenals of democracy in the western world could produce by force or law.
Although I do not think our present approach will work, I think the other approach will. In this regard I appeal to the press. This is one area in which the press can well take a hand and help us. If a man is so bigoted as to advocate racial discrimination, superiority of colour and skill, superiority of ethnic origin, he should be ridiculed. There is nothing particularly cruel about that sort of ridicule.
April 7, 1970

I feel sorry for such a person if he is mentally undeveloped. I feel sorry for him if he has come from a home where there was no love. I feel sorry for him if his free education in a modern school has left him high and dry so that he is an unfeeling wretch. This person enters a free society-as free as we can make it-where there is opportunity for people of all ethnic origins, certainly as far as I know. I beg the media to ridicule such a person, and if he is mentally sick I hope we can send him to the appropriate doctor.
It would be wasting the time of the courts to bring persons of mature years before the bench in order to tell them their basic responsibilities as Canadian citizens; to tell them they do not appreciate what freedom really is, that they do not understand what it is to be able to travel in a country such as ours where people do not have to lock their doors at night. This is a country where, by and large, both the person and his property are sacred.
I appeal to the press, to the television medium and writers of plays and singers of songs to ridicule these people. Seven years of fighting them with guns has not seemed to do much good. I do not think the violence we have seen during the last 50 years has moved us one inch closer to the brotherhood of man. But men like Martin Luther King have done so. If we needed any further proof that the black man is our equal or our superior, where is there a man today who can replace Martin Luther King?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but I am afraid his time has expired unless he has unanimous consent to continue.


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent to allow the hon. member to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could not have ended on a better note.


Mr. D. Gordon Blair (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, my reason for participating in this debate is that four or five years ago I was concerned in proceedings conducted under the Post Office Act leading to the issuance of a prohibitory order against the circulation in this country of what was called scurrilous literature. These proceedings are referred to in the report of the Special Committee on Hate Propaganda, and more particularly at pages 47 to 50.
Hate Propaganda
When I first approached this subject I was like many of the writers of editorials in our newspapers who have been giving us advice in the past few days. I thought that any effort by the state or by the criminal process to control what might be considered to be the expression of political opinion was likely to be harmful to us all. But as a result of my involvement in these proceedings I was for a considerable period of time exposed to the hideous subculture of hate-hate as expressed in the outpourings of the authors of the publications that we had to consider and which were made public by an organization called the National States Rights Party. I was also exposed to the full force and vigour of the hideous hatred of the representatives of this party in Canada.
The result of this experience was to convince me that people who offered documents of this kind and who spoke opinions of this kind were not entitled to the protection of the ordinary democratic rules and principles; that these people, at least in my opinion, were enemies of a free society and that it was in the public interest that something should be done to control what they were trying to say or trying to publish.
We are now faced with this new and important proposal, and no one can say that it has not been well considered. It has been considered by an important committee which held public hearings, which published a report that has been before the public for three or four years. As we all know, a bill in a form somewhat similar to the one presented to us now was considered for two or three years by Their Honours in the other place. This bill-I speak now as a member of the Justice and Legal Affairs Committee- received very careful consideration in committee and, I would make so bold as to say, has been improved as a result of the discussion held and suggestions made there.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
We are faced with a proposal in an amendment moved by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) which would have the effect of deleting from this bill its two most important provisions, those which prohibit public incitement of hatred and permit the authorities to impound, seize and otherwise prevent the circulation of written material expressing hatred. I find it very difficult to believe that people who have read this bill carefully could think it could be directed at the innocent and the honest expression of

April 7, 1970
Hate Propaganda
free political opinion. The opening words of proposed Section 267B are as follows:
Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group, where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace, is guilty of-
It goes on to say that certain defences are provided, such as the defence of truth, the defence of expressing arguments which are in the public interest, and the defence of expressing arguments which are made in good faith. I have risen to speak in this debate simply because, as I said earlier, I have had first-hand exposure to written hatred, to personal hatred and to the application of the judicial or semi-judicial process to it.
I am not troubled at all by the wording of this bill. I do not have the same difficulty that has been expressed by other members about the various defences because, for what my experience is worth, the wording is not very difficult and it certainly would not be very difficult for the judiciary of this country to deal effectively with people charged under these provisions and to consider such defences as truth, good faith and the expression of argument made in the public interest. These are things experienced judges can easily ascertain, assess and apply in the circumstances presented to them. In the proceedings with which I was connected all these defences were raised, yet it was not difficult for the expert tribunal which considered the matter to put them in proper perspective and find that they did not apply.
I therefore welcome the opportunity to support the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander), the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan) and others who have said that this kind of legislation can be enacted in good heart by this House. It is important for Parliament to set a standard, and the prohibition of hatred expressed in an odious and terrible way is as important to this Parliament as our Criminal Code provisions against blasphemy, criminal libel and seditious utterances. For these reasons I urge the House to reject the amendment of the hon. member for Calgary North and to support the bill.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, because it is almost ten o'clock and any remarks I make at this time will barely introduce my speech, I suggest we call it ten o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, speaking on behalf of the Government House Leader, we intend-despite a previous announcement, and having talked to other House leaders-to continue tomorrow with the debate at the report stage of Bill C-3, dealing with hate literature. If tomorrow the report stage is concluded, the House may want to consider waiving the rules and proceeding with third reading of the bill.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, one of the highlights in the Speech from the Throne at the opening of this session-and it will be found at page 2 of Hansard for Thursday, October 23, 1969-was the declaration that a white paper on social security would be presented to Parliament during the course of this session.
I may remind the House that in the previous session there had come to our knowledge the fact that a document known as the Willard report was being prepared. I expressed the hope that that report might be tabled during that session of Parliament, and the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) held out the hope that that might be done. However, it now appears that the government has no intention of making public the Willard report. Rather, the government has fallen back to its promise to make public its own white paper on social security which presumably will be based on its study of the Willard report.
As I have already said, the commitment to table the white paper in the course of this session was one of the promises in the Speech from the Throne, and hon. members will not be surprised if I say I have been asking for it just about every month since this session began. The first occasion was on Monday, October 27, 1969, as recorded at page 95 of Hansard when I asked again about the Willard report only to be told that we could not
April 7, 1970

count on seeing it, but I was reminded that there would be a white paper on social security and I quote these words from the Minister of National Health and Welfare:
-which will be brought before Parliament in the course of the next few months.
As I say, that was on October 27, 1969. I will not take the time of the House or take my own time to read all the questions I have asked during the last several months about this, but if I did they would tell the story of a receding hope. A long time ago we were to get the Willard report; then it was changed to the white paper; we were going to get a white paper soon; we were going to get it during the course of the session; we were going to get it within a few months, for after all it was a highlight of the Throne Speech. As the months have gone on, the hope that we would see that white paper in time for anything to be done on the basis of it during the course of this session seems to be disappearing.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)
The last occasion I questioned about this was on Wednesday, March 25,	1970, as
recorded in Hansard at page 5466. On that day I asked the Minister of National Health and Welfare if we could look forward to the tabling of the white paper on social security when we came back after the Easter recess. The minister's answer was in these words:
Mr. Speaker, I do not believe the white paper will be ready by the time the hon. member indicated.
My colleague the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) came in with a supplementary question, asking on what date we would get the white paper. The minister's reply to her was as follows:
The only assurance I can give, Mr. Speaker, is that it will be ready before the end of this session.
Then I put this supplementary question:
Will it be in time for any action to be taken on it during this session?
To that the minister replied:
I do not believe so, Mr. Speaker.
Sir, I contend that is a very sad reflection of the government's position with regard to the old age pensioners and other people in this country who look for progress in the field of social security. This document, the white paper, was held out to us in the Speech from the Throne last October as one of the high-22218- 10i
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion lights in this session. We have asked for it repeatedly and now are told we will not get it in time for anything to be done in respect of it during the course of this session. I suppose it probably will be tabled during the last week of the session so that then it will receive newspaper coverage and all that kind of thing, in the hope that the people of Canada will think something may be done about it at the next session.
In view of the length of time it takes to get a white paper, I expect we will go through another session trying to get the government to bring in its legislation. This is really reprehensible, particularly in view of a certain piece of legislation that was put through Parliament just before Easter having to do with our own pensions. We did not have to wait for a white paper on social security, but the old age pensioners are being told they must wait for that document.
This applies not only to them but also to the veterans receiving war veterans allowance. They are being told that their case cannot be considered in conjunction with the study of the Woods report or the white paper on veterans legislation. They must wait until we have the white paper on social security. In other words, there are many hundreds of thousands of people involved, when we consider those on the old age pension. Remember that three-quarters of a million of them are in such straitened circumstances that they are able to qualify for the guaranteed income supplement. When we add to that number those on the war veterans allowance and the many others who are on the borderline in need of increases in their pensions, it is a conservative estimate that at least one million people in Canada are having to wait for the tabling of the white paper for an improvement in their economic position.
Yet the government cannot bring down the white paper. I am being charitable when I say the government cannot bring it down. I contend that the government refuses to bring it down. I believe the government has made a deliberate decision, that if it is to do anything at all in this field, it will stall until as close as possible to the next election. We have had far too much of this over the course of the years. It is all right to talk about having to fight inflation and having to enlist the old age pensioners and the war veterans in the battle against inflation, but we did not join it ourselves by what we did just before Easter. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I say this is a policy the government should not pursue, the policy of delaying the tabling of the white paper.
April 7, 1970
5620	COMMONS DEBATES
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
I know that the white paper when it comes down will not by itself do anything. I know that after that there has to be legislation. I am not one who expects to be greatly delighted by the white paper, for I believe it will probably say some things that are grossly inadequate. But if the government has decided that the tabling of its white paper is the next step before there can be legislation in this field, then for heaven's sake bring it down so that we can get on with pension legislation and do something positive to meet the needs of more than one million people who are waiting desperately for action in this field.


Stanley Haidasz: Mr. Speaker, the preparation of any thorough review of social security involves a great deal of research, comparison and evaluation of existing programs in Canada and elsewhere, and an investigation of its relations to other areas, like the economy as a whole and regional disparity. At the same time, we know the urgency of the problem, the inefficiency of many existing programs and the amount of personal distress suffered by many in need. However, compassion and sympathy will not solve the difficulties unless supported by a good and workable program. When social legislation is enacted, it must be the best that we can possibly devise.
I can only assure the hon. member that the question is receiving the greatest attention and the highest priority in our department, and that the White paper will be tabled with all the speed compatible with a good, useful and workable program. Again I would like to draw the attention of all hon. members to the assurance that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) gave in this House on March 25, that the white paper on social security will be ready before the end of this session.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But
not in time for action.



AGRICULTURE-PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND- GRANTS TO ESTABLISH TOBACCO FARMS VIS-A-VIS ANTI-SMOKING CAMPAIGN

Harold Edwin Stafford: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I directed a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro), namely, how does the minister reconcile the recently announced government grants to help establish tobacco farms on Prince Edward Island with his anti-smoking cam-

paign? A few days ago an irate tobacco farmer in Elgin county wrote me, enclosing an article from the Delhi News Record which included a picture and a red headline stating that three young Delhi men "start flue farm on P.E.I." The article described the proposed operation regarding the farm, greenhouse and kilns and said in part:
Financing for these expenditures will be aided by a grant from the federal government.
Unless the minister is able to prove that the soil of Prince Edward Island is such that it will grow tobacco which is totally immune from all the harmful compounds which the minister claims is found in tobacco smoke, I can only conclude that one branch of the government is promoting the growing of tobacco while another is carrying on an antismoking campaign to discourage the use of tobacco. All this gives strength to the old adage that the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing. It is confusing, to say the least.
Under either the Area or Regional Development Incentives Act the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is making grants for the establishment of tobacco-curing facilities on farms in Prince Edward Island. Under this arrangement many thousands of dollars have been approved and paid to farmers as an incentive for flue-curing tobacco facilities in that province. The Department of Agriculture finances the Delhi Research Station at Delhi, Ontario, in an attempt to improve the yield and quality of the tobacco farmer's crop. Similar experimental work is being carried on by the department at the Harrow Experimental Farm.
The Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce works incessantly to promote the export of tobacco. In the past few months the department sponsored a trade mission whereby representatives of the department and of the Ontario Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers Marketing Board went to Britain, Western Europe, Japan and Australia in an attempt to increase tobacco exports. In April, 1969, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) went to Tokyo on a Canadian trade promotion and made a forceful case for tobacco. The Japanese market is very important to future exports of Canadian tobacco, and the minister tried to persuade the Japanese government to liberalize its imports of tobacco. The minister even smoked a Canadian cigar in front of one of the Canadian booths to show the Japanese how good they are.
April 7. 1970	COMMONS
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
Three departments are doing their best to encourage more people in economically depressed areas to get into the production of tobacco, improve the quality of tobacco and increase our export sales. All this while the Department of National Health and Welfare is doing its best to eliminate cigarette smoking. What kind of policy is it that encourages people to develop tobacco farms with one hand and then threatens to cut them off at the knees with the other?
Perhaps we should look at our basic policy, if we have one. A policy so diverse and leading in opposite directions cannot all be right. Our trade missions are moving around the world helping Canadian farmers sell their tobacco. Can we possibly live with our conscience when one department tries to discourage Canadians from smoking while another goes out of its way to encourage the nationals of other countries to use our tobacco products? Of all times in our economic posture when we are doing everything to cut back government expenditures, we must make certain that such expenditures are made under a prime policy.
The right of people to smoke is established. It is a matter of free choice. I would be the first to assert that the public should be made aware of the risks involved. It distresses me that the minister bases his case against tobacco on evidence much of which is dubious to say the least. In contrast, we appear to be spending money directly toward a policy which if implemented might be disastrous, namely, the legalization of the use of marijuana. Yet in contrast to the use of tobacco we have available compelling evidence of the dangers of marijuana.
In a public statement made in western Canada shortly before the appointment of the LeDain commission, the Minister of National Health and Welfare implied that the government might consider legalizing marijuana if a minority of Canadians use it. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) has suggested that he knows no particular harm in the use of marijuana. These statements are made in the face of research authorities in Canada, the United States and Britain that marijuana is proving to be both a personally and socially harmful drug. It leads an impressive percentage of users to hard and dangerous drugs, according to many experts such as Dr. Donald B. Lauria, the chairman of the Department of Public Health and Preventative Medicine at New Jersey College of Medicine, and Dr. F.
DEBATES	5621
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion W. Lundell, associate professor of psychology at McGill University. It causes hallucinations which can have serious consequences, of which no more telling example may prove to be the tragic leap to death from the Peace Tower of a young man whose 17-year old companion was found in possession of hashish. The preliminary research of Dr. Lundell indicates the probability of permanent brain damage from the use of marijuana.
All this leads us to question the consistency of policies in the Department of National Health and Welfare itself. The minister chose, on very preliminary research on cyclamates where cancer was produced in a mouse which received large doses of cyclamates, to stop the use of cyclamates in food products, where on the other hand he talks of legalizing marijuana on which there is considerable research evidence on the dangers of its use. I call on the Minister of National Health and Welfare to clarify these matters in his department, and for the government to issue a clearcut statement on them.
I know hundreds of tobacco farmers who are deeply concerned over the inconsistencies of government policy relating to tobacco. They have every reason to be alarmed. In fact, the council of Delhi and the county council of Norfolk are on record with resolutions urging the government to exercise real caution in its approach to this situation on which the lives of thousands of people depend.
Hon. members should know that tobacco growing in recent years has been the most stable of our agricultural products. It is, next to wheat, our largest agricultural export commodity and this year will generate more than $60 million in export sales. It is also the bedrock of the Canadian tobacco manufacturing industry, supplying virtually 100 per cent of the requirements of an industry which this year will be the largest single source of revenue of the Canadian government, contributing about $600 million to the federal treasury. It is the government's responsibility to provide clearcut policies.


Stanley Haidasz: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I should like to say that I regret the minister was unable to be here this evening to answer the hon. member. The information that we have obtained from departmental officials is that there is no federal grant program available to help establish tobacco farms in Prince
5622	COMMONS DEBATES	April 7. 1970
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion Edward Island or elsewhere in Canada. Such grants may have been made by the provincial government but this, of course, would be outside the jurisdiction of the federal government.
I should like to draw the hon. member's attention to the report of the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs which studied tobacco and cigarette smoking. As far as assistance to tobacco growers and workers in the tobacco industry is concerned, the recommendation was as follows:
Your committee recommends that the Departments of Regional Economic Expansion, Agriculture, Manpower and Immigration, Industry, Trade and Commerce, and National Health and Welfare
co-ordinate their efforts to assist the tobacco growers and workers in the tobacco industry to adjust to the major changes which will eventually develop.
I expect there will be a great deal of development in this field because the minister is now preparing draft legislation based on some of the recommendations of the committee. I am sure that if the hon. member listens to the explanation to this bill which will be given, I hope by the minister himself, a lot of the smoke and doubt that is beclouding many minds with regard to this matter will be dissipated.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.20 p.m.

Wednesday, April 8, 1970