1970-04-09

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, members of the House may be interested in a brief report of my visits to Paris and Bonn in the past week. I went to Paris to open the new Canadian Cultural Centre there and to talk to Mr. Maurice Schumann, the French Foreign Minister, and to Bonn to return the visit paid to Canada last year by Mr. Willy Brandt, who is now the Chancellor, and to discuss matters of common interest with members of the German government.
Our new Cultural Centre in Paris will assist Canadians in France, especially students, and bring to the French people information about Canada, reflecting our bilingual and bicultural character and the many cultural strands that make up the Canadian fabric. The director of the centre is Mr. Guy Viau who was assistant director of the National Gallery here before taking up his new responsibilities. Mr. Viau is particularly well qualified for the job and I am sure that the centre, under his direction, will forge new ties between Canada and France.
The interest of the French government and the people in the new centre and in Canada as a meeting place of two great cultures was well expressed by the French government's representative at the inaugural ceremonies, Mr. Leo Hamon, who said:

What makes your country unique is the imbrication and the juxtaposition of its two cultures. This centre will fully reflect the originality and the wealth of resources of a country intent on retaining its own personality in the New World notwithstanding the size and power of its southern neighbour, which can be achieved only by preserving its diversity.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)

In Paris I met with the French Foreign Minister, Mr. Maurice Schumann. The principal subject we discussed was our bilateral relations, and the most important part for me was Mr. Schumann's categorical statement that the French government has absolutely no intention of intervening in the internal affairs of Canada. If there is no misunderstanding between us about this, and I hope there is not, our problems will be easier to deal with in the future.
I explained to Mr. Schumann what I consider to be the three basic elements on which good relations between France and Canada should rest: First, that co-operation between France and Quebec, which we regard as being of first importance, must be carried out in consultation with the Canadian government; second, that co-operation between France and Canada must be practical in nature and not confined to expressions of good will; third, that France must avoid taking positions contrary to the Canadian constitution.
As a result of this frank exchange I feel we have laid a foundation for avoiding in future some of the incidents which have in the past caused unnecessary strain and tension between us.
In Bonn my objective was to establish a better mutual understanding of our respective policies on international problems of common concern, and to prepare the way for more intensive bilateral co-operation between our two countries.
I got a first-hand account from the German Foreign Minister, Mr. Walter Scheel, of the federal government's efforts to improve relations with their eastern neighbours and to develop a more integrated community in western Europe, efforts which naturally form an overwhelming part of German preoccupations at the moment. I expressed the admiration of the Canadian government for the courage, imagination and realism of the federal government in these efforts.
The Germans expressed their appreciation for Canadian understanding and support. They also stressed the importance they attached to the maintenance of an active Canadian role in both the defence and detente
April 9, 1970

Minister's Visit to Paris and Bonn efforts of NATO. I reaffirmed the importance for Canada of our ties with Europe not only from the security point of view but also as a means of diversifying our external relations.
I discussed with several members of the German federal government ways of strengthening the functional co-operation between our two countries, particularly in the fields of science and technology, where both countries have something to contribute and something to gain from more intensive and systematic exchanges. We agreed to proceed in a pragmatic way to identify specific areas where the prospects for such exchanges are most promising. I hope it will be possible to send a mission to the German Federal Republic in the year to follow up these initiatives in greater detail.
I took the opportunity of these visits to let both the French and German governments know of the Canadian government's concerns about the repercussions of certain commercial and agricultural policies of the European Economic Community, particularly in relation to grain production and trade. Our desire is to increase consultations with the EEC on these matters so that the transatlantic co-operation to which we attach so much importance will be strengthened rather than weakened.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, we all welcome the minister back from his wanderings. I hope he will excuse me if I say I was given no previous notice of his intention to make a statement, nor do I have a copy of Sharp's Travels to assist me in my comments. However, after listening to him I can readily understand why that material might not be necessary.
We are happy that the minister visited France. Anything that can be done to improve relations between this country and France, and with the other European countries he visited, will be welcomed by us. No doubt we shall have an opportunity to comment further when we have examined the minister's statement in more detail.
The only further comment I would make is that it is probably unfortunate the minister did not remain here. He might have been helpful in preventing the action of the government and the Prime Minister in throwing away, by the introduction of bills and by other statements made yesterday, the legal works built up over a great many years by every Prime Minister from Laurier to the Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson in establishing a claim to sovereignty over the Canadian Arctic. All of this was disposed of, notwithstanding

the legal phraseology and the petty quibbling of the Prime Minister and the government yesterday.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, we in this party are very glad to see the Secretary of State for External Affairs back in his place. We have listened with interest to his travelogue which might be described as "Innocence Abroad". We also listened with interest to the report he has given the House. Certainly all of us share the minister's hope that our relations with France will be greatly improved as a result of his visit and as a result of the better understanding that has been developing in recent months.
I was disappointed in press reports during the minister's visit which attributed to him statements that appeared to pour cold water on a full-fledged conference between the eastern and western powers as the government of Finland has been urging. The minister appeared to follow the line that no such conference would be valuable until all the i's were dotted and all the t's had been crossed. I think there are a great many Canadians and people throughout the world who feel that such a conference would be useful, that events are moving at such a rapid pace that any delay in the holding of such conference could prevent beneficial effects flowing from it.
The minister made no mention in his statement whether or not he had any discussions with the governments of France and Germany respecting the situation in Greece. There is increasing concern in Canada about the actions of the military dictatorship in Greece. Canadians feel that being associated with this dictatorship in NATO does not strengthen the hand either of NATO or of democratic countries. If the minister did have any discussions with respect to the attitude that the NATO countries are going to take to the military regime in Greece, I hope he will make a statement. If he did not have such discussions, I trust that discussions will be opened at the earliest possible date.
The minister also mentioned some discussions about the European Economic Community. I had hoped he would be able to tell us whether or not he was able to enter into any arrangements with the government of France respecting closer adherence to the International Grains Arrangement, since France is now one of the major exporters and also one of the countries that has been selling grain considerably below the floor in
April 9. 1970	COMMONS
the agreement. I hope that as a result of the minister's visit and any follow-up from it we can expect better co-operation among the signatories to the International Grains Arrangement than has been evident up until now.


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abilibi):: Mr. Speaker,
I have only a brief comment after the statement just made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
I listened carefully to what he had to say about his trip and I hope the meetings he attended will enable us to improve our relations with the countries he visited. However, I am concerned about a news item heard here during his trip; the minister did not refer to it during his statement and it had to do with the negotiations aimed at recognizing Communist China.
Apparently, the minister declared in Germany that if Red China were recognized, the representatives of Taiwan in Canada would be asked to leave. I hope nothing will come out of this statement and that, if it becomes necessary to recognize Communist China, he will find a way to maintain cordial relations with the representatives of free China.
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Has-lings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. As the presidents of our largest petroleum and iron ore companies have stated recently that if the white paper proposals become law projects worth many hundreds of millions of dollars will not be economic and will have to be discarded, and as the Minister of Finance has said he intends to make changes in the white paper before it becomes law, will the government take the very earliest possible opportunity to announce to the country what the proposed changes are before we lose these very important projects due to the uncertainty which exists today?


Righi Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I cannot give that undertaking as regards time. The undertaking

Inquiries of the Ministry has been made, and I repeat, that the white paper is for the purpose of discussion. After we have heard opinions from all sections of the community we will, of course, bring in legislation indicating the government's final opinion on all of these matters. In the meantime, beyond the commitment that we will examine all representations very seriously, I cannot make any statement at the moment as to whether we will have a second edition of the white paper. I do not, for the time being, think that that is called for.



DISCUSSIONS WITH U.S. GOVERNMENT ON SUBSTITUTION OF TARIFFS FOR QUOTAS ON OIL IMPORTS FROM CANADA

George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Has the minister anything he can bring the House up to date on regarding discussions he has had with Labour Secretary George Shultz, the chairman of the President's task force on oil imports, delaying with the subject Mr. Shultz discussed in Montreal yesterday when he said the United States would like to discuss quota-free importation of Canadian oil into the United States market and the substitution of tariffs for quotas?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I have had no particular discussions with Secretary Shultz in this regard, although earlier in the year I had discussions with Secretary of the Interior Hickel when I reiterated the Canadian position that it would be to the advantage of both countries to have an open border in regard to crude oil trade.


George Harris Hees: As Secretary Shultz has said the United States government is anxious to discuss this matter with the Canadian government, would the minister get in touch with Secretary Shultz as soon as possible to see what he has in mind?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: With hat in hand?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I believe as early as March of last year the President and the Prime Minister initiated discussions along these lines, and I am sure they will be followed in due time and in due course to the advantage of Canada, and particularly to that of the Canadian oil producers.
April 9, 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry



DISCUSSIONS WITH U.S. GOVERNMENT REGARDING EXCHANGE OF COMMODITIES

Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the statement made in Montreal yesterday by Labour Secretary Shultz of the United States, may I ask the minister whether there are any discussions going on between the government of Canada and the government of the United States regarding the exchange of energy commodities and, if so, who is carrying on these discussions on behalf of the Canadian government?


John James Greene: I do not believe there are any specific negotiations going on at the present time with the exception of the continuing discussions between United States officials and those of our embassy staff in Washington who are working on this matter on a continuing basis.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I have a further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. If I understood the minister's answer correctly, any discussions that are going on are being conducted through our embassy in Washington. What are the terms of reference from the Canadian government to our embassy in Washington under which these discussions are being carried on?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, the broad terms of reference are as I stated them. In respect of oil it is to the mutual advantage of both Canada and the United States to have an open market in the United States for Canadian oil, and also the present restrictions are not in the best interests of either country, as we stated very strongly at the time the presidential restrictions were put on. If I read correctly the press reports of Secretary Shultz's speech yesterday, it would seem that the Canadian view is now being substantiated, at least if the views of Secretary Shultz as stated yesterday express current United States thinking.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister if the discussions which are going on between our embassy in Washington and the United States government are confined exclusively to the purchase of oil or are any other commodities involved in these discussions?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, as stated there is no particular discussion on any other commodities. It may be that preliminary discus-

sions are taking place. Certainly there is no Canadian posture or authority to negotiate the exchange of energy or sale of energy in any other areas at the present time.



CANADIAN SOVEREIGNTY


Mr. Paul St Pierre (Coast Chilcotin):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I should like to direct to the Prime Minister. Has there been an official United States government reaction to our bold, imaginative and welcome Arctic policy announced yesterday in the House?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker; I know of no official United States reaction. There was, I believe, a statement made to the press by Secretary McClos-key, but I do not have the text of his statement here.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary arising from the question just asked. This matter was brought to my attention just before coming into the House and I believe it is very serious. I put the question to the Prime Minister. There is a report from the State Department of the United States and I want to find out whether it is correct. Has that country now denied Canada's rights so far as sovereignty over the Arctic waters is concerned and our sovereignty over the Northwest Passage. Is that correct?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I can only repeat what I said in answer to the previous question concerning our bold and imaginative policy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I have in my hand a communique of the Canadian Press with some very short quotations of State Department spokesman, Robert McCloskey. I do not see in here any denial of the substance of what the hon. member has just mentioned, but there may be some longer speech he made of which I do not have a copy.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a
supplementary question. I take it from the Prime Minister's statement that he has not been officially notified that the United States takes that position. Could I ask the Prime Minister this? Has his government taken the position that Canada has sovereignty over the
April 9, 1970

northern waters and northern islands of the Arctic? So far as Canada is concerned, have we made that clear to the United States?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, when I was answering the question I was referring only to the United States reaction to yesterday's bills introduced in Parliament and to my own comments. It would be wrong to say that at no time did the Americans express to us their opinion on the status of the Arctic.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a further supplementary question because this is important. May I put this to the Prime Minister. Has Canada made clear its position in this regard? If the United States has any question so far as Canada's rights and sovereignty are concerned, will there be any change in reference to the voyage of the Manhattan?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, Mr. Speaker, I believe the Secretary of State for External Affairs and myself have made clear Canada's position on previous occasions, but now that the bills are before the House and will be discussed I am sure we will have an opportunity to elaborate on it and I hope that the opposition parties will also elaborate their positions on the Arctic.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, could the Prime Minister say, before the decision was made to opt out of the International Court of Justice and not to claim sovereignty, whether discussions were held with experts on international law and whether the decision was made to do this because of the fact that the weakness and indecision of the Prime Minister more than a year ago in not re-asserting those rights has proven to be fatal to his case?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question as asked is not in order. The hon. member for York South on a supplementary.


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: I think every member realizes that if the Prime Minister has not seen a statement he cannot very well comment on it. I would like to ask the Prime Minister this question: in view of the reports that the United States State Department has rejected the 12-mile limit which one of the bills tabled yesterday proposes and Canada's alleged unilateral action with regard to the Arctic, can the Prime Minister tell the House whether he can give the House an assurance that when the statements are
Inquiries of the Ministry brought to his attention more fully the House will hear from him or from any minister he designates as to this country's position on the statements made in Washington?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Of course the House will hear further from the government on this matter. I understand the House Leader has scheduled a debate a week from today, and we will be very happy to engage in debate with the opposition parties on this matter.



ALLEGED DUMPING OF CANADIAN SULPHUR IN U.S. MARKET

Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: My
question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Has his department or the government been advised directly or indirectly by the United States authorities of protests against the alleged dumping of Canadian sulphur in the U.S. market? If so, what has been the stand of the Canadian government and what further steps does the minister contemplate taking to prevent any sort of unilateral price fixing for this commodity?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I can only say that I have not been informed of this and I will find out whether others have.



WHEAT-PUBLISHING OF ACREAGE REDUCTION PROGRAM REGULATIONS-SECOND SURVEY OF SEEDING INTENTIONS

Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: My question is for the Minister without Portfolio from Saskatchewan. In view of the fact that the government has now issued a second bulletin on operation LIFT, the wheat acreage reduction program, when will the minister issue the regulations authorized by the supplementary estimate and also promised with respect to the Canadian Wheat Board Act, and will the minister make a statement on motions in the House when these regulations are available?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister without Portfolio):: I have not decided about a statement at the time and, of course, as indicated previously, the regulations will be issued as soon as they can be put into final form.


John Stratford Burton: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the government consider asking the Dominion Bureau of Statis-
April 9, 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry tics to undertake a second survey of seeding intentions on the prairies in view of the obvious deficiencies in the first survey which was released recently?


Otto Emil Lang: I will give consideration to that, Mr. Speaker.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, with respect to the minister's answer a moment ago that the regulations have not yet been produced. On what basis has the government formulated its bulletins to the farmers telling them what their rights and prerogatives are if no regulations have been formulated, and if the regulations have been formulated why has the minister not tabled them?


Otto Emil Lang: The bulletins, of course, are based on the proposal which the government put forward, and the details are therefore in firm form. As the hon. member will appreciate, the regulations must be examined in light of all of their implications and from the point of view of correct draftmanship.



RETAINING OF PORTION OF WHEAT MILLED FOR FARMERS' OWN USE TO REPAY CASH ADVANCES

Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, mine is a related question directed to the Minister without Portfolio. In view of the fact that a total of 50 bushels of wheat can be delivered to local flour mills to be milled for a farmer's own use but of the amount delivered half is retained to repay the cash advance, would the minister give consideration to allowing the total deliveries to be milled for flour so that farmers with large families will not be forced to buy flour over and above that obtained from their own wheat?


Otto Emil Lang: The fact that a portion of the wheat delivered for gristing is required for cash advances is a consequence of wording of longstanding in the cash advance legislation coupled with the fact that the wheat in question is treated as board wheat in connection with the general policy of treating wheat for human consumption at the $1,954 price.
[Mr. Burton.!



JAPAN-PROSPECT OF INCREASED MARKET FOR RAPESEED

Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: My question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce even though I would like to question some of the other ministers on the same subject. As a result of the minister's visit to Japan can he tell the House whether he has information indicating to him that Japan will be a ready market for an increased amount of rapeseed in the next year, particularly in view of the fact that there will be an increase in the production of rape this year?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean-Luc Pepin: A first step has been taken by Japan in the liberalization of trade
in rapeseed. We asked their minister of Agriculture to keep on the same course until the full liberalization of trade in rapeseed takes place.



TAXATION


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Can he tell the House whether or not there has been such a large number of letters, communications and representations in connection with the white paper on tax reform that special action is being taken with a view to dealing with the backlog and providing replies to the questions that are propounded in the letters and communications?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am not quite sure whether the right hon. member is referring to correspondence directed to my office.


John George Diefenbaker: I am referring to letters directed to the government in general.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I know of no particular arrangements which have had to be made to meet the very encouraging response to the white paper.


An hon. Member:: Smile when you say that.


George Harris Hees: O.K., Alice, go back to
wonderland.


An hon. Member:: You should have been a candidate for the Academy Awards.
April 9. 1970	COMMONS


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Why don't you bite your tongue?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I used the word "encouraging" not necessarily in reference to the substance of these communications but in reference to their numbers.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I think the government has been vindicated in its belief that by proceeding by way of a white paper rather than by statute or budgetary measure we have involved many Canadians in the process of participation in government.


John George Diefenbaker: There is nothing like the determination that comes from despair, and the Prime Minister has revealed that in his statement. Is he not aware of the fact that a special project has been set up at a cost of $190,000 for the purpose of answering the letters received so that answers may be given to those who send in their complaints or ask questions? Is he unaware of this wholesale expenditure which is to be made for the hiring of chartered accountants and additional staff?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I must confess that I was unaware of it, but I will say that we do not find it a waste of money to communicate with the Canadian people on subjects which are of interest to all.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: I always like to extend a helping hand and I bring to the attention of the Prime Minister the facts regarding the making of this expenditure. Because the Minister of Finance has on hand a backlog of approximately 5,000 letters, an establishment has been set up to work for the next three months, including a whole group of chartered accountants at fees up to $200 per day.


Mr.   Spsaker@: Order, please.


John George Diefenbaker: Surely the Prime Minister knows what is going on.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It seems to me that was not a supplementary question but rather the conveying of information from the right hon. gentleman to the other right hon. gentleman.
DEBATES	5671
Inquiries of the Ministry EXTERNAL AFFAIRS



CALLING OF CONFERENCE ON LAW OF THE SEA

Mr. Thomas S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the right hon. Prime Minister arising from the statement he made yesterday as a prelude to the introduction of Bill C-202 and Bill C-203. Has the government taken any initiative toward the calling of an international conference on the law of the sea in order that some of the inadequacies to which the Prime Minister referred in his statement may be done away with, thereby usefully extending the jurisdiction of international law to which the Prime Minister said we were anxious to adhere?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, if I may be
permitted to answer this question, I wish to say that when I had discussions with the United States authorities we agreed that we would work together to try to bring about an international conference as soon as possible.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: A supplementary question. Can the Secretary of State for External Affairs give the House any indication of when it may be possible for such a conference to be held?


Mitchell William Sharp: I will take that question as notice and see when I can answer it later.



ISRAELI-ARAB CONFLICT-MESSAGE OF SYMPATHY FOLLOWING BOMBING OF EGYPTIAN SCHOOL

Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Could the minister tell the House whether he has sent a message of sympathy to the Egyptian government following the report of the bombardment of a primary school near Bahr el Bakr which killed at least 30 young children and injured more than 40?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I am sure all members of the House, as well as the government, deplore the progressive escalation of military activities in the Middle East. Incidents of the kind referred to by the hon. gentleman are particularly distressing and regrettable. If press reports are confirmed,
April 9, 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry
and so far they are just press reports, this incident will further emphasize the compelling urgency of achieving a peaceful settlement of the dispute. There have been many incidents in this war and I am almost tempted to say that if we made a protest about each one of them there would be very little more we would be doing.



INCLUSION OF MIDDLE EAST IN POLICY REVIEW

Marcel Prud'homme: would like to ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
Could he indicate whether the review of the Canadian government foreign policy which is now going on will include the Middle East conflict?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, of course it is included in our general review of foreign policy but there will not be a specific study on the subject.



MEMBERS' PAY AND ALLOWANCES

Mr. William Skoreyko (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could ask the Prime Minister a question. I would like to ask him if his government proposes amending the statute under which Members of Parliament receive their pay and allowances to allow those members who are opposed to raises in remuneration and pensions an opportunity to opt out?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Skoreyko: Mr. Speaker, I ask this question in all seriousness because I would like to reduce hypocrisy to a minimum.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Rod Thomson (Battleford-Kindersley):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether this would also apply to the income tax that we pay?



POST OFFICE


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. Following the 
failure of several ministers and one commissioner in their efforts to settle the Montreal postal dispute, can he now advise the House and the country what the government's current plans are for dealing with this longstanding problem?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the President of the Treasury Board has answered this question on previous days. I can only repeat what he has said to the House, that a final offer has been made to the local concerned and an extension, I believe to April 15, has been indicated to them for their acceptance of the government's position based on the Goldenberg report, beyond which time, of course, if the members of the local involved do not accept this very generous government offer we will have to consider other measures. But we are optimistic that they will and therefore we are not talking about any other plans.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: In the consideration of these other measures has the Prime Minister in mind something bold and imaginative like assigning the highly qualified Minister of Regional Economic Expansion to deal with this difficult problem?



ESTABLISHMENT OF CROWN CORPORATION

Mr. Roch La Salle (Jolietie):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the Prime Minister.
I should like to ask him whether in making its proposal, the government has considered the establishment of a Crown Corporation.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, that is not the point. The government proposal was made to the union. Its broad lines are known and I stated several times that it is based on Commissioner Gold-enberg's recommendation. It has to do with the integration of the workers into the public service where they would find not only the security which they have never known, but where they would also receive a salary equivalent to that which they were getting previously and also have much better working conditions.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to
April 9, 1970	COMMONS
the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the alarming statements and the great fear among women on the pill, and in view of the recommendation by the obstetrics and gynecology division of the Food and Drug Directorate at Washington that a warning sticker should be affixed to every package of pills setting out the precautions and the danger signals, is the department giving consideration to any similar proposal?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member may be aware, this whole matter is under study. A special committee of consultants was set up in the early part of March. They have been meeting to give expert advice to me and I expect their report some time in the early part of May. It will go into this very subject of the warnings in professional literature, whether these warnings should be on the packages, and the sufficiency of the warnings suggested. I cannot give the hon. member a more definitive answer until I get the report from that committee.



RELEASE OF PREVENTIVE MEASLES VACCINE

John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, while I am on my feet may I say that yesterday the hon. member for Simcoe North asked a question about rubella vaccine, and I wish to advise him that the Food and Drug Directorate has received applications from three manufacturers to market rubella vaccine in Canada. The directorate has reviewed all research data and hopes to be in a position to issue a licence to one of the manufacturers within the next two weeks.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Max Salisman (Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker,
I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. It concerns a question I raised with him on March 20 in which I asked him whether he was going to call together representatives of the tire industry to see if some policy could be worked out regarding the special concessions granted to the Michelin Tire Company. At that time he said he would do that. Has he convened such a meeting and, if so, what conclusions have been reached?


Jean-Luc Pepin: This is being done
DEBATES	5673
Inquiries of the Ministry now, Mr. Speaker. My department has already met with the presidents of two tire companies and the consultations will continue.



MANPOWER


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Prior to the Easter recess I directed a question to him with regard to telegrams he had sent to the Ontario Minister of Labour and the Ontario Minister of Trade and Development concerning lay-offs at Dunlop Tire. Has the minister received answers to those telegrams and, if so, would he tell us the substance of the answers?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I have not received any answers to my telegrams.



POLLUTION


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Now that the government has claimed sovereignty over Arctic waters can the minister advise if such vessels as nuclear submarines, which frequently traverse these waters, will be required to observe anti-pollution measures and to post an anti-pollution bond?


Mr. Russell C. Honey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I will refer that question to the minister. It is not his duty day in the House. I think the hon. member has read the legislation.


Gerald William Baldwin: That is why I asked the question.



INDUSTRY


Hon. Theogene Ricard (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Could he
April 9, 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry inform the House of the state of the negotiations between the United States and Canada with regard to the terms of the automotive agreement between the two countries?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, up to now some agreement has been reached with regard to statistics on exports and imports between the two countries. Negotiations should resume soon on the substance of the matter, that is on the Americans' wish to eliminate the "guarantees" now provided for in the automotive agreement, to which we are presently opposed.



POLLUTION


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskolca):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. Has the minister been in contact with the Ontario and Quebec governments this week concerning the high level of mercury in the Ottawa River?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: The answer is no, Mr. Speaker.



INQUIRY AS TO REPORT OF LEDAIN COMMISSION

Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the submission to the LeDain Commission made by the Attorney General of Prince Edward Island and also the statements made by the Prime Minister of Ontario regarding the policies of the governments of those provinces, when will the LeDain report be tabled in the House?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, the government has not yet received the LeDain Commission report. I would expect it some time perhaps within the next ten days or two weeks, at which time the government will consider the matter of its disposition.


Robert Norman Thompson: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister assure the House that full exposure will be given to the evidence which was submitted in several of
[Mr. Ricard.)
these reports regarding the danger of marijuana compared with the more potent drugs?



NATURAL RESOURCES


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Can the hon. gentleman advise when he expects the meetings on offshore mineral rights now going on with the eastern provinces to come to a conclusion? At the same time would he advise whether the federal position is one of negotiation and sharing of future revenues or of maintaining that all such revenues would be federal?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, there was a meeting in Montreal on Monday of this week at the deputy minister level between the deputy minister of my department and the top officials from the departments of the five eastern provinces. The federal government's position was clearly stated by the Prime Minister more than a year ago to the effect that for the purpose of assuring uniformity and continuity the administration should be federal but that we are perfectly prepared to share revenues with the provinces in order to achieve this accord that is required to assure federal administration.



POLLUTION


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. In view of a statement made a few days ago by his Parliamentary Secretary to the effect that there is mercury contamination in the Red River originating from sources in the United States, can the minister say whether he has yet found a way to cope with this matter?


John (Jack) Davis: Well, the frank answer would be no. The mercury is not at a high level there, but there is mercury in the Red River originating in the United States and coming into Canada.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is
the minister planning to take up this matter with the people who are responsible for it?
April 9. 1970


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, the Department of External Affairs has been in contact with Washington concerning the problem of mercury pollution in our international waters.



INCREASE IN RESEARCH ACTIVITIES BY DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES

Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingale):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the minister similar to the one I directed to him three days ago. Inasmuch as there is increasing evidence of pollution of the nature referred to by the hon. member and since the present research budget is the same as last year's and is, we realize, totally inadequate, can the minister now say whether he is recommending to his colleagues in the government an increase in the research activities of the department in order to short-circuit much of this kind of pollution?


John (Jack) Davis: The answer is yes, Mr. Speaker.



COMPENSATION TO LAKE ERIE FISHERMEN FOR MERCURY CONTAMINATION OF FISH

Mr. H. E. Stafford (Elgin):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. The federal government in cooperation with the government of Ontario recently announced certain advances of money to be made to commercial fishermen in Lake St. Clair, Clay Lake and the Detroit and St. Clair Rivers pending settlement of claims against those who have caused mercury pollution. Would this same policy apply to fishermen in Lake Erie if they are similarly affected by mercury contamination of fish?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, the same policy
would apply. We have considerable evidence now that there will be no need for us to concern ourselves about the fishermen in Lake Erie because tests of the fish there show that they are low in mercury.



TRANSPORT


Mr. R. R. Southam (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: 
Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the whole point of the work by the transportation committee was in connection with securing the co-operation of the various parties involved in handling this grain, and those assurances from those parties were indeed forthcoming.



INDUSTRY


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister.
In view of the recent federal government decision to withdraw the grants previously allowed to gold mines, it would seem that certain mines in Quebec will have to close down. However, as the Prime Minister has stated that only a postponement of this decision would allow mine owners to continue their operations, I would like to ask him if he is willing to discuss such postponement with the Quebec government?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, this matter of grants to gold mines is the responsibility of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and I believe the question should be addressed to him. However, I will take note of it and mention it to him.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the submissions by the Canadian Unitarian Medical Aid Committee to North and South Viet Nam, does the government still intend to refuse permission for the shipment of medical supplies to North Viet Nam until assurances are received that these will only be used for civilian purposes?
April 9, 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I will look into the matter.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The minister says he will look into the question and yet he and his department have already replied to the committee that this is the case. May I ask the Prime Minister about some real hypocrisy-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Will the Prime Minister assure-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Does the hon. member wish to ask a supplementary question?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Yes, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether, in view of the government's requirement that assurances be received regarding the shipment of medical supplies to Viet Nam, the government will now request from the government of the United States assurances that any arms sold to that country will not be used in Viet Nam?



NATIONAL SECURITY


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Since there is no independent civilian agency on security procedures, as recommended by the royal commission, would the Prime Minister agree to show to the former prime ministers of this country the security assurances he has received with regard to the director of Information Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, Mr. Speaker, if this is customary I am prepared to discuss it with the former prime ministers. The assurance I have is one which was given several years ago and in effect under another prime minister when this kind of allegation was made against this same gentleman. The assurance was given then in the form of a letter by the then commissioner of the RCMP to the then prime minister. The results of the investigation at that time were that there were no reasons to doubt the reliability or the loyalty of the gentleman. If the Leader of the Opposition wants to discuss this With me, I will gladly do so.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the Prime Minister's answer. I do not raise this lightly and I do not like raising it.


An hon. Member:: Not much you don't.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: But in view of the answer-if anyone smiles at that or if there are any more epithets from across the floor of the House like there were yesterday and if the President of the Privy Council wishes to stand on his feet and say something-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: -then I will raise a point of privilege and do what I do not want to do.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am in sympathy with the point made by the hon. member. Perhaps he might ask his supplementary.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry I digressed. It is a paradox to me, since we are discussing the hate literature bill in this House currently, that we should experience this sort of incitement-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member is again digressing.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I appreciate the Prime Minister's answer. I gather from that answer that there has been no security clearance-perhaps that is not the proper terminology-on the appointment since the director was appointed in another capacity? Does the Prime Minister consider there is any degree of difference between the gentleman's other appointment as a B and B commissioner and his appointment as director of this new vehicle, Information Canada, which is a fairly sensitive and potentially powerful media? Because of what the Prime Minister told me today, I may not ask any more questions. I hope perhaps we can leave the matter. However, from the information the Prime Minister has received and from what the commissioner of the RCMP said with reference to a previous position which was not political and not as powerful, has he assured himself that this person is satisfactory for this present appointment?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I still think the hon. member's question yesterday might more properly have been addressed privately to the Solicitor General or myself rather than draw this kind of matter to the attention of the public. However, if it will satisfy the hon. member, as a result of his questions I have
April 9, 1970

none the less asked for a further security clearance from the department concerned. I will then act as I see fit at that time. I can only repeat that a previous allegation of the same nature led to an investigation. The result was there was no reason to doubt the loyalty and reliability of the said gentleman. I have done as I said.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


Mr. Ryan:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I have risen on every question, save for the first one, this day and I have not been recognized. I have a question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is not a question of privilege. Will the hon. member kindly resume his seat? The hon. member is in the same position as other hon. members who have sought the eye of the Speaker and unfortunately could not be recognized. Unless there is unanimous consent-


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent. We have already gone five minutes past the time allocated.


Sylvester Perry Ryan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I trust then I will be recognized at the first opportunity tomorrow.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, April 8, 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) and Motion No. 3 (Mr. Brewin).
Mr. Speaker:: The question was put yesterday, so the Chair will now call in the members. The question is on the following Motion No. 2, moved by Mr. Woolliams:
That Bill C-3, an act to amend the Criminal Code, be amended by striking out
Lines 26-28, both inclusive, Page 1 thereof Lines 1-46, both inclusive, Page 2 thereof Lines 1-44, both inclusive, Page 3 thereof Lines 1-46, both inclusive, Page 4 thereof Lines 1-9, both inclusive, Page 5 thereof
Division
and by adding thereto, next after Line 25 on Page 1 thereof, the following:
''(5) Where a person is convicted of an offence under this section, anything by means of or in relation to which the offence was committed, upon such conviction, may, in addition to any other punishment imposed, be ordered by the presiding magistrate or judge to be forefeited to Her Majesty in right of the province in which that person is convicted, for disposal as the Attorney General may direct."
The House divided on Motion No. 2 (Mr.	
Woolliams) which lowing division: [DOT] (3:10 p.m.)	was negatived on the fol-
 YEAS Messrs:
Baldwin	MacRae
Bell	McCleave
Bigg	McCutcheon
Cadieu (Meadow Lake) McIntosh	
Caouette	Mazankowski
Comeau	Monteith
Crouse	Moore
Danforth	Muir (CapeBreton-
Diefenbaker	The Sydneys)
Downey	Muir (Lisgar)
Flemming	Now Ian
Gauthier	Paproski
Godin	Peddle
Grills	Peters
Gundlock	Roberts
Hales	Rynard
Harkness	Saltsman
Howard (Skeena)	Schumacher
Howe	Skoreyko
Korchinski	Southam
Lambert (Edmonton	Stewart (Marquette)
West)	Thomas (Moncton)
Laprise	Thompson (Red Deer)
Latulippe	Thomson (Battleford-
Lundrigan	Kindersley)
MacEwan MacLean	Woolliams-50.
 NAYS Messrs:
Aiken	Crossman
Alexander	Cullen
Allmand	Cyr
Badanai	Danson
Barnett	Davis
Barrett	Deachman
Bechard	Deakon
Benjamin	Douglas (Nanaimo-
Blouin	Cowichan-The
Borrie	Islands)
Breau	Drury
Brown	Dub6
Buchanan	Duquet
Burton	Emard
Caccia	Forest
ChrAtien	Forget
Clermont	Foster
Cobbe	Francis
Comtois	Gendron
Corbin	Gervais
C6te (Richelieu)	Gibson
Cote (Longueuil)	Gilbert

April 9# 1970
Division
Gillespie
Givens
Goode
Gray
Greene
Guay
(St. Boniface)
Haidasz
Harding
Hees
Hogarth
Honey
Hopkins
Howard (Okanagan Boundary)
Hymmen
Isabelle
Jerome
Kaplan
Kierans
Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre)
Laflamme
Laing (Vancouver South) Lang (Saskatoon -Humboldt)
Langlois Laniel La Salle
Leblanc (Laurier)
Lefebvre
Legault
Lessard (LaSalle)
Lessard
(Lac-Saint-Jean)
Lewis
Loiselle
MacDonald (Egmont) Macdonald (Rosedale) MacEachen MacGuigan Maclnnis (Mrs.) Macquarrie McBride McGrath McKinley McNulty Mahoney Marceau
Marchand (Langelier) Marshall
Mongrain
Morison
Munro
Murphy
Noel
O'Connell
Olson
Orlikow
Otto
Ouellet
Pelletier
Pepin
Perrault
Pilon
Portelance
Pringle
Prud'homme
Ricard
Richard
Richardson
Robinson
Rochon
Rock
Rose
Roy (Timmins)
Roy (Laval)
Ryan
Serr6
Sharp
Smith (Northumberland-Miramichi)
Smith (Saint-Jean)
Stafford
Stanbury
Stewart (Cochrane) Stewart (Okanagan-Kootenay)
Sullivan
Thomas (Maisonneuve)
Tolmie
Trudeau
Turner (London East) Turner (Ottawa -Carleton)
V/ahn
Walker
Watson
Whelan
Whicher
Whiting-135.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


Paul St. Pierre: Mr. Speaker, I did not vote for or against this motion because I consider the legislation unsatisfactory in its entirety.


Mr. Speaker:: The question will now be put on the motion proposed by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin), which is as follows:
That Bill C-3, an act to amend the Criminal Code, be amended by adding to Section 267B thereof the following subsection:
"If any person is charged with an offence against subsection (2) of this section, then the court may, if a breach of the subsection has been committed by the person charged or is reasonably to be anticipated, make an order in lieu of or in addition to

the penalty set out in subsection (2) requiring such person to cease and desist from proceeding with or continuing or making any communication prohibited by the Act and the order so made may be enforced as if it were made by the superior court of any province..."
and that the following subsections of section 267B be remembered accordingly.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice) moved: that Bill C-3, to amend the Criminal Code as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read a third time?


Some hon. Members:: Now.


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to special order made yesterday, now.


John Napier Turner: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker,-
Division


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to apologize to the right hon. gentleman but the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is rising on a point of order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder whether, in view of the fact that the usual Thursday announcement was not made earlier today, the House would permit the Government House Leader to indicate the business for today and the next few days before we carry on with this debate?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale):: I thank the hon. member for his-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There has to be
agreement. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Obviously, there is not agreement. I recognize the right hon. member for Prince Albert.
Righl Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert): Mr. Speaker, I did not speak on second reading of this bill or at any time throughout the debate. I followed the various speeches whether I was present or not. I am sure that, with the exception of two or three speeches, the House has dealt with this question in a way that was responsible and objective.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: I want to say that, in so far as the presentations of various members are concerned, I am going to restrict myself to the mention of one, the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) who, on behalf of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, outlined the views of this party with clarity and distinction.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: No piece of legislation that has been before the House has given me the same concern as this bill has. I dealt with it in Toronto when B'Nai B'Rith had a dinner at which I was one of the speakers. I pointed out my opposition to this bill and outlined that opposition in general. One thing I will always treasure is the fact that, while many who were present did not agree with my views, when I concluded they gave me an

Hate Propaganda
unanimous ovation. This indicates the attitude of Canadians as a whole as we view those things which from time to time require to be decided and considered by the House.
Having endeavoured throughout my life to uphold freedom and to maintain freedom both at the bar and in Parliament, I am deeply concerned that what is taking place here is another step down the slippery slope to silencing the voice of disagreement.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)


John George Diefenbaker: Through the years, judge me as you will, I have tried to stand for what I conscientiously believed in. As I look back in retrospect over the years, I trust that no one will consider me immodest when I point out that in 1922, when it was unpopular to take the stand I did, I took an appeal for French Canadian trustees against a conviction based on the teaching of French in the schools. It was an unpopular stand. It is the only reported case on this subject in the province of Saskatchewan. Of course it is one case to be remembered, because we who were counsel at the bar always remember the cases in which we were successful. During the darkest days of the war I stood alone in my party when the CCF took a strong stand in condemnation of the treatment accorded the Japanese people in British Columbia whose only offence was their colour. It was not popular to take that stand, but in the light of events it was right.
In 1945 when Gouzenko made his charges, I objected in this House against the denial of Habeas Corpus and against the substitution for the regular processes of law and of incarceration without the opportunity for the individual to get in touch with counsel. It was not a popular stand, but in the passing years I think what was said has been shown to be right. I do not have to say that I condemn and loathe the outrageous statements made about Jews, coloured people and individuals who belong to other religions. I have maintained this stand from the earliest days. The Jewish people indeed have been and are my friends. There is no one in this country who has received a greater number of honours and distinctions from the Jewish population everywhere in this country than have been conferred on me, and I say that in all humility.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.

April 9, 1970
Diefenbaker: The hon. member for York West (Mr. Givens) indicates his agreement. Therefore it has become a trying experience, something that exercised my heart as well as my mind, to take a stand against this legislation. Sir, the statements that have been made against minorities- and the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr Alexander) dealt with that in eloquent terms-are repugnant to every Canadian-they are shocking to my conscience and conscientious beliefs. Racial hatred has never been an ally of mine throughout my life. It is in, that spirit that I approach a discussion of this bill, which is about to become law. I may recall that in 1948 when my party came out m favour of outlawing Communism I opposed that stand. I said it was wrong. I said that law cannot outlaw ideas. It was not a popular stand to take. One has to take such stands through the year.
As I listened to my hon. friend from Hamilton West I recalled the stand I took at the Prime Ministers' conference, for which I was greatly condemned in both the years 1960 and 1961, and wrongly condemned for having forced South Africa out of the Commonwealth. I did no such thing. South Africa withdrew from the Commonwealth when it became a republic and then asked to return to the Commonwealth. I raised the question there were 12J million blacks or coloured people in South Africa and 2% million whites, but the blacks or coloured people had no representation in Parliament. I said that in the days of Botha and Field Marshal Smuts there were three members in a House of 160 to which Prime Minister Verwoerd replied that he would give them no such representation. I was the only white representative at the Prime Ministers' conference who took a strong stand, but when that statement was made a change came about. I said to the South African representatives you cannot, you dare not, adopt any other principle than that the minority shall have parliamentary representation and that the Commonwealth must be colour blind when nine out of ten belong to a coloured race.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: As he knows, I have great respect for the Minister of Justice (Mr Turner). My regret is that he is the minister who had to bring this before the House of Commons. We will, I predict, look back on this day in the years to come as one that we would like to forget, just as we try to forget today our treatment of the Japanese. The
April 9, 1970

uncle of the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Hogarth) and I were overseas together and remained life-long friends. I remember discussing the matter with him. He said, "This thing is wrong". Sir, the passing years do not make wrong right.
I shall not become involved in a discussion of the meaning of the word "freedom". It means something to each of us. To me it means the right to be wrong, not the right to do wrong. It includes the right to say what others may object to and resent. The only freedom of speech that has any meaning at all is the one that gives me the right to say the things that run counter to the general views of people as a whole, subject of course to the limitations of libel, slander, blasphemy and sedition.
Are we to define freedom as meaning the right to express only such views as are acceptable to the overwhelming mass of the people? That is not a very valuable kind of freedom. The essence of citizenship is to be tolerant of strong and provocative words. Liberty confers duties and responsibilities, one of its duties being to be tolerant of those who express views which may offend. We often hear certain words credited to Voltaire, who never used them at any time. It was Daniel Webster who used these words:
Though I may disagree with everything you say, I will fight to the death for your right to say it.
Mr. Justice Brandeis of the United States Supreme Court, whose nomination as a Justice was opposed because he was a Jew, uttered these words:
If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more free speech, not enforced silence.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: What he said represents my philosophy of life. From time to time I quote Burke, and he is quoted even by Liberals today. He said:
The true danger is when liberty is nibbled away for expedients and by parts.
He also said:
The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion.
Discussion is necessary to decision. If the objective of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald), or his apparent objective, on Monday to get this bill through quickly had been met, the Canadian people would not have had any idea of the nature of
Hate Propaganda
this legislation. One would almost think the contents of the bill were something about which one should not speak. One of the reasons I feel as I do is that throughout this nation today-and this has developed in the last two or three years-people are filled with fears. They do not know what is going to happen. They ask: Can we not have leadership that will raise our horizons? They fear; they wonder what is happening to pride of country and heritage.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
I could deal with radio and television in this connection. If such power is given to Mr. Gagnon and to the chairman of the CRTC, that these two men could destroy the freedom of this nation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: Some might say, "not at all, because another election will come along and we can change". You cannot change what is done in this connection".


Mr. Marchand:: Good.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Marchand says "good".


John George Diefenbaker: The minister is one of those architects of repression to whom I did not intend to make reference, but I can only assume that an hon. member with his reputation would not make an observation in derision. What he said when he uttered the word "good" indicated his deepest and innermost thoughts, and that is a matter of deep concern to me.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


An hon. Member:: He is one of the troika.


John George Diefenbaker: Today, the government can have anything they choose. If the government believes something is a matter of national import, it puts it over the CBC. Radio and television concerns are filled with fear in this country They are scared stiff, to use a colloquialism. Many are scared of the CRTC, and I will deal with that on another occasion. This is part and parcel of the fear that is developing among all the people of the nation about Canada's future.
Why do we have this legislation? The Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) said "good" a minute ago. I want to point out the philosophy of this government as enunciated by him in 1968. I did not expect the privilege of an interruption from him that would make this possible. On

April 9, 1970
Hate Propaganda
November 13, 1968 I raised strong objection to the fact that there were coming into Canada individuals such as Rubin and Stokely Carmichael and other revolutionary riffraff of that kind. They ridiculed the Canadian government. They condemn our institutions, but at that time the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said:
-but it is not our view there can be any danger of uprising or strife-
I emphasize the word "strife".
-as a consequence of a free discussion of ideas. It is the cause of unrest which we try to correct.
Those were the days when they spoke of this new heaven and this new earth, the just society. The Prime Minister said: "We strive to remove the causes of unrest", and with that the hon. gentleman who, a moment ago, said "good" uttered these immortal words as recorded at page 2687 of Hansard. Is it not strange that I just happen to have them with me? He said:
Mr. Speaker, I believe the policy of the Department of Immigration in this regard is known. I myself explained it in this House, and I believe it had also been applied previously. When someone comes here, especially when he is sponsored by a well known organization in Canada, if he only comes to start a public debate and exchange ideas, without any pronounced intention of organizing a revolution or stirring up trouble, then, in the name of the freedom of speech, we allow him across our border.


Paul St. Pierre: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: The minister has one supporter. This was the philosophy of a few years ago, and today it is other than that. On February 14, 1969, when I pointed out that these people were coming in for the purpose of advocating revolution in Canada, that their work was to the detriment of our people, the Prime Minister said this:
-We cannot exclude all people because some of them might want to speak in terms of revolution.
Suddenly, the philosophy of the minister who said "good" and of the right hon. Prime Minister is now being brushed aside, and now they fear freedom of speech. I wonder to what extent their fear consists of political hopes and aspirations. During the election campaign a great deal of literature was disseminated across Canada regarding the Prime Minister. Lately, the same has been done regarding Mr. Gagnon. Mr. Speaker, if anybody wrote any of those things said of them about me I would sue him within 24 hours for criminal libel because I would know it was not true. The right is there, and yet the dissemination of these ideas continues.

What is behind this legislation? I wish the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) were here because during the election campaign he gave an explanation for this policy of repression. On June 12, 1968, he so reported as having said the following:
The people behind this hate literature are diseased-
They must be isolated, quarantined, and, if possible, cured before they destroy us and the society we live in.
That is a job for the Department of National Health and Welfare.
Then, as acting minister of justice he enunciated his philosophy across Canada as follows, that they were going to go after those citizens who were distributing hate literature; they were going to ensure that this should not continue. Look at section 267c which by its wording indicates the possibility that it will be used to stifle those who write that which the government does not like, even though their writing does not refer to a class, a race or a colour.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)


John George Diefenbaker: A speech is made; the group of those who do not agree are in the audience and start to scream that what is being said shocks their consciences regarding race, colour or religion. Then, the proof of the intent and the commission of the offence is established. Incidentally, Sir, this legislation is almost identical in substance with one of the first laws passed in the U.S.S.R. in 1919. If you want to look it up I think you will find it in volume 16 of Americana.
It is strange that all of these things are happening at a time when the Supreme Court of Canada, over a period of eight, nine or ten years, has made greater advances in the interests of human freedom than in all its history. I realize that those who are in the establishment do not like the Bill of Rights. They ridicule the Bill of Rights. They opposed it over the years, and since 1960 when it became law, professors of different varieties of wisdom have condemned it. Inferior court judges have cast their eyes elsewhere.
Then came the case of Mr. Drybones. It is a beautiful name, Drybones. His case came to the Supreme Court of Canada, and what happened? The lawyers from the Department of Justice were there, and argued that the Bill of Rights had no effect. Mr. Christie, Q.C. led the argument, and he did it with power. They fought the Bill of Rights to the limit. Now, Mr. Speaker, the minister tells us that the Department of Justice has given its opinion that this legislation is constitutional. How do you expect them to be more right on this than they were in reference to the Bill of Rights which they opposed, argued against, and fought?
With respect to the decision in the Drybones case, I was particularly impressed with the fact that the two majority judges, Mr. Justice Ritchie and Mr. Justice Hall, had the support of the new Chief Justice of Canada, Mr. Justice Fauteux. If you divide your judges according to opinion as small "c" or small "1" I would have designated Mr. Justice Fauteux as a small "e" conservative, but he upheld the Bill of Rights. That judgment is a monumental one.
Some argue that the Supreme Court of Canada should develop along the lines of the United States Supreme Court and become an institution of social judgment and justice, thereby representing the changing views of the people. I hope that does not come about, although the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) last Sunday on televi-22218-14J
Hate Propaganda
sion, as he spoke to the student body of Carleton, pointed out that Canada is going towards a republican form of government. When the Minister of National Health and Welfare gets into that field, I begin to fear.
Now, Sir, I have nothing to say against the United States Supreme Court, but do Canadians want anything along the lines of what has happened there on the two nominations to that court made by the President of the United States? Not at all. There is no question in the Drybones case of there being an advance by the court into the new field of social justice. There was an interpretation of a statute, the Bill of Rights, which will never be repealed because there is no government, however grasping its power-seeking members may be, that would ever dare do so.
As I look at the Bill of Rights and read the sections dealing with the right of the individual to equality before the law, the protection of the law, freedom of speech and freedom of assembly, I think there is every reason to believe that there is a strong argument that can be advanced that freedom of speech in 1960 meant freedom to say what one would, excepting for libel, slander, sedition and blasphemy. If that be so, and that rule is the rule of interpretation as I understand it, then this legislation contravenes the Bill of Rights very directly and definitely.
Sir, I have asked for the opinion of the law officers and the minister stated that they give the same opinion that they gave previously. Well, they are the same people who gave the opinion that the Bill of Rights was an idealistic declaration of idealistic uncertainty, euphoniously worded, but completely inoperative. And they learned a lesson to the contrary by that judgment.
That brings me to discuss the next question. What is this legislation going to be used for? I have been here a long time and I have seen a lot of governments. I do know what Mackenzie King would say if he were here and saw this legislation, or what St. Laurent would say. This legislation, it can be argued, is in keeping with the times. Is it in keeping with the times to reduce freedom in order to increase freedom? There is similar legislation in the United Kingdom, brought in by a socialist government, and it does not work. I am not going to mention one or two people who are right honourables in the United Kingdom and who make the most stringent statements against people of another race and colour, but the legislation has not been used against them. It has not been used; it has not

April 9. 1970
Hate Propaganda
been effective. It was pointed out, over and over again by many members of parliament in the United Kingdom that it would not work. I have here, but I do not have the time to place it before the House, a summary by the Canadian Press writer from London in which he concludes that it has not worked.
Now, I return to what I was saying a while ago when I was diverted by the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. This fellow Rubin loved freedom so much that the minister and the Prime minister said in effect, "Let him come in." Let me read what he says. I will leave part of it out because it is too offensive.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
We've got America on the run. We've combined youth, music, sex, drugs, and rebellion with treason -and that's a combination hard to beat-
This is the man who was allowed to enter Canada and given the red carpet treatment. This is the kind of thing he argued in universities across the country. I continue reading:
What's needed is a new generation of nuisances, a new generation of people who are freaky, crazy, irrational, sexy, angry, irreligious, childish and mad.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: And when we read of some of the receptions he received, it is obvious that there are some who qualify fully for membership in those groups. He said that we now have people who lure our youth with music, pot and LSD. Then, he used a short word I will not use; it is familiar and has become part and parcel of Rubin's speeches. Then he said, "Subvert! That's the task of every young person." The government welcomed him. When some of these fellows were barred from Canada finally, the CBC interviewed them on television from Buffalo, and transmitted their story to all parts of Canada. Is it any wonder that there is a feeling of uncertainty in this country?
I cannot deal at this stage with these proposed sections in detail, because the bill has been read the second time. But this is what Dean Walter Tarnapolsky of the Faculty of Law in the University of Windsor has to say about the proposed new section 267B:
This section in effect creates a heckler's veto-
That is something with which I was dealing. I continue:
-so that those who object to the message given him not merely silence the speaker but in effect make him subject to prosecution.
[Mr. Diefenbaker.1
I have said over and over again I have no objection to the genocide portions of the bill, although Dr. Frank Scott thinks there is no need of them at all. How many hon. members of this House have read his words? I have not always agreed with him but he was the shining, effulgent leader of the CCF, and subsequently of the NDP in the field of civil liberties. His cause had many recruits. Many have followed him. I am interested to learn when it is that that party departed from the views expressed by him. On April 29, 1969, his name was sufficient to bring about silence, because he was the spokesman of freedom. Furthermore, I doubt whether there is a lawyer across the country affiliated to the Civil Liberties League who has not condemned this legislation.
What did Professor Scott say? He said that he did not need to contend that he was as much against hate propaganda as anyone but, nevertheless, he could not subscribe to the principles inscribed in this bill. He could not consider them anything but dangerous of adoption and inclusion in our criminal law at this time. Then, he gave four reasons for his opinion. He said, first, that this bill is retrograde. It certainly is. The advances which have been made and which culminated in the Drybones case are now to be sliced away. He said, secondly, that he thought it was unnecessary; third, that it was dangerous, and fourth, using a non-legal expression, that it was old fashioned. Well, when I see the youthful minister I wonder how it is that he brings in old fashioned legislation.
Sir, Dean Scott referred to the various cases in which the concept of human rights, in a series of magnificent decisions in the Supreme Court, has been increased throughout the years. There is the Boucher case, and five or six others. He concluded by saying that he thought this legislation was dangerous.
Is there a crisis at this time? Sometimes legislation of this kind is passed in a crisis. Can you tell me, sir, that one or two loud blabbermouths are sufficiently important that to affect this country as a whole? There is less discrimination in Canada today than at any time in our history.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: Why is this legislation being brought in? Sir, Dr. Daniel Hill, Director of the Ontario Commission on Human Rights, has stated that the Canadian public, because of its social stability and high stand-
April 9, 1970

ard of living, is relatively immune to extremist, anti-semitic and other hate materials. I think that is so. This is panic legislation, recommended by the Prime Minister who, over the years, was a member of the socialist party and, subsequently, a member of that committee that brought down the recommendations for it. The minister contends that it constitutes good legislation. Well, it may teach people that they ought not to preach hate but Dr. Scott said this bill will also teach them that the way you stop hate mongering is by having the police lay charges and putting men in prison. That is worse education than any good education which might flow from the bill. I will say no more.
I am deeply concerned about this legislation. Canadians everywhere are suddenly becoming aroused. The House seldom knows the amount of criticism that comes in from the people. Only today we found out that the Department of Finance has set up another force costing $190,000 to answer the letters that are coming in concerning the White Paper. But the Prime Minister did not know anything about it. People everywhere are concerned about this bill. Two world wars were fought for the freedom to speak, not the freedom to break the law.
The Prime Minister has every reason to be concerned over what has been written about him, but he can take action for criminal libel. Mr. Gagnon, the man who is actually determining Canada's future as vice-chairman of the B and B Commission which has already had $100,000 worth of sittings, must be disturbed too. He can take action for criminal libel. It does not take long. However, one statement allegedly made by Mr. Gagnon stands out. When somebody suggested that course to him he said, allegedly, "That was the mistake Alger Hiss made." Sir, we have enough law to protect us. Where there is wrong doing, let is be punished. Having said that, I repeat I am deeply conscious of the danger to our country arising from the passage of this legislation. I know many of my Jewish friends believe in it.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
However, it is worthy of note that the Jewish Congress has never asked for such legislation in the United States, despite all the McCarthyism that has taken place in that nation. I cannot do anything to stop it being passed into law. I say, when turn back the clock of freedom in order to be able to punish a small minority. Does one use a Howitzer on a mosquito?
Hate Propaganda


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Paul SI. Pierre (Coast Chilcolin):: Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to almost everything in this bill except its intent. I have no quarrel with the intent. I am sure this applies equally to most, if not all, hon. members of this House. The intent is to reduce to some degree the sour pus of hatred in the body of the Canadian nation.
To do this, Bill C-3 proposes to create three new crimes. As we all know, Mr. Speaker, we cannot create new crimes without some infringement on the freedom of citizens. Therefore, it is a step which this Parliament should always be most reluctant to take. I do not think I have to labour this point. This debate is in its fourth day and members, both those who support the bill and those who oppose it, have all shown a consciousness of this value of freedom for Canadians.
Personally, Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that Bill C-3 represents a major encroachment on the freedom of Canadian citizens. I am not convinced this is a deep encroachment on the rights of citizens. I could go further and say that it is a significant infringement on freedom. If I believed this bill would result in a significant lessening of hate literature or a significant lessening of racial strife in Canada, I would support it. I would do so reluctantly, but I would support it. 1 am not so convinced.
It is my conviction that at best this law will not accomplish anything. It will merely be a piece of counter-propaganda put on the statute books. I am afraid that the results may be worse. I am afraid this legislation, if passed, will be welcomed by those sordid people who deal in hate literature. I think it will be a crown of thorns for them to pull down on their little pointed heads. I fear that it will cause other hate literature, more devious and vicious, to be published. I think that the residents of society's lunatic fringe are going to get an importance they do not deserve and in the process of circumventing this law, which they can surely do, they will produce a stronger poison than they are now producing.
I feel this is an attempt to legislate mankind into decency. I do not believe that is workable for reasons which I hope to make clear later in these remarks. I do not believe it is a proper function of the criminal law.
Before proceeding to do so, Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak briefly on my own limitations in participating in this debate. There is one
56SS

April 9, 1970
Hate Propaganda
limitation in particular which is serious. All my life I have been a member of the majority. My skin has always been the colour of most of those around me. My features, such as they are, have the shape of the average man. My hair, nose and the slant of my eyes have always been similar to those of the majority. I have never experienced first-hand the prejudice which falls upon a person who is in the minority. However, I have made it my business to observe it as closely as I can.
I have many friends who are members of a recognized minority. I refer to the Indian people. They have experienced hatred and contempt. Although I do not have personal experience with the problems of the minority, I am conscious of them and of the fact that there are few greater tragedies for a man than to be pre-judged. This above all is the element of hatred which is so damaging. Although it is damaging to the people who use it, it is even more damaging to its victims.
This is the position of a man who, because of the colour of his skin or some other reason, is not judged as an individual, but prejudged as being a member of a group. He is placed in the position of having to prove that he is equal to the majority of citizens before being accepted. Most hon. members in this House have not experienced this first-hand. We should remember this. I wish I could believe that Bill C-3 provides a cure for that sickness, but I cannot.
I had intended to speak at some length on what I consider to be the weaknesses of this proposed law in terms of enforcement. However, having listened for more than three days to a variety of speeches on this subject, I think it has been quite thoroughly covered. There is no point in my repeating this for those members present. However, I wish to deal with one or two defences provided. In Section 267B.C2), proving truth is a complete defence. This, Mr. Speaker, is a stronger defence than we admit for men charged with libel against individuals under the criminal law.
All newsmen know that a man can be damaged desperately and absolutely unjustly by the diabolical use of truth. With a birth certificate and medical certificate you may be able to prove that the man is a lousy bastard, but under the criminal law you will be punished for doing so unless in some strange way you can prove it is in the public interest to use truth in that way. In this bill we are permitting truth as a defence to a charge of defamation of large groups of people. It will be a defence for those who peddle hatred.
IMr. St. Pierre.]
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
What about another subclause, subclause (c) of the same clause? I shall not read it in full. The words used are "if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest..." and so on. I have studied this. I believe it was the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Roberts) who drew attention to the point earlier. I suspect Heinrich Himmler could have defended himself under this provision for his verbal attacks on the Jewish community in Germany. However, I shall not thresh this old straw again.
I should like to turn briefly to the genocide provisions. Some hon. members may say: How can anyone in any circumstances tolerate a society in which people can defend genocide? It is my own feeling that the handful of idiots in Canada who would advocate such a course might just as well reveal their idiocy to anyone who wants to examine it. Their influence is so small as to be immeasurable. But let us assume, for the sake of argument, that some promoters of genocide do attain a degree of public acceptance and do begin to make some headway in this country. I consider this unlikely, almost to the point of impossibility, but we are assuming this for a moment. It is my contention that there is provision in the law as it stands to deal with such a situation. I refer to a case which has been cited several times in the course of this debate, the case of Boucher v. The King, 1949-50. I am reading an excerpt from page 39 of the report of the Special Committee on Hate Propaganda in Canada. The last paragraph reads:
On this interpretation of the Boucher case, classes of Her Majesty's subjects may be adequately protected as groups, under the existing Canadian law of seditious libel, from violence or threats of violence against them, whether or not the violence is directed primarily against them. But on any interpretation the protection to groups extends only to situations where the prosecution can prove that violence was intended.
Of course, Mr. Speaker, no one can advocate genocide without advocating violence. Genocide is violence.
Elsewhere in the Criminal Code, for instance, among the seditious libel sections, provision is made for criminal actions to be brought against people who endanger the structure of our society by the incitement of hatred and violence. Bill C-3 would go further. It would seek-in my view, ineffectively-to silence the lunatic fringe without necessarily requiring evidence that their words were endangering the peace and good
April 9, 1970

order of the state. This, I maintain, is an attempt to use the criminal law to improve men's morals. I am not convinced that the criminal law can be effectively used in this way. I am not convinced that the law can be used to educate people. I am aware that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) does not agree. On Monday he told the House he feels the criminal law has a role as an educative force in Canada. I respect the Minister of Justice. I respect his integrity and his intelligence; I also respect his opinions. But in this case he and I have an honest difference of opinion.
Some of us were amused to hear the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) go into a peroration about dissension in the ranks of the government party which was going to drive the government out of office. What a high, faint cry that was from a defeated party anxiously grasping at any straw by which it might conceivably gain power. It is doubtful whether they would have a clear notion of what to do with power if they did get it. In the unlikely event that this bill is defeated, I would expect the government to promptly set down a motion of confidence; the hon. member for Calgary-North would then see very clearly where the members of the government party place their confidence and where they do not. But I disagree with the government on this piece of legislation.
In closing I should like to quote briefly from two articles on the subject. The first is part of a brief prepared by the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association. It is a very long brief but my quotation will not be extensive:
Reasonable though such suggestions may sound it should be remembered that while a politically free self-governing people can rightly authorize its governmental tribunals and agents to do many things in its name, including of course the prohibition of many acts deemed harmful, it can never rightly authorize its governmental tribunals and agents to serve as censor or screen for the citizens' minds. To authorize that, even in one area, thereby diminishes the people's self-governing capacity and renders them less fit for their civic role. Any such authorization, moreover, provides the principle and the precedent by which the procedure may be extended in order to suppress other expressions of hatred, not only "hate", ideas.
To the degree politically free people abdicate their sovereign, collective right to determine for themselves which ideas they shall hear or read,' which proposed policies they shall accept or reject, which doctrines they shall advocate or deny -to that degree they have hedged their democratic commitment, giving evidence thereby of a failure of nerve.
Hate Propaganda
I shall read, now, from another paper on this subject. This was contained in Chitty's Law Journal, Volume 18 No. 1. of January 1970 and the author is H. W. Arthurs, Assistant Dean of Law at Osgoode Hall. Incidentally, in his article Mr. Arthurs describes himself as a member of an identifiable minority group. He was speaking of the earlier bill; the bill has been amended since, but I doubt whether Mr. Arthurs opinions on it have changed. As appears on page 4, he says:
"If this bill is enacted, the general community reaction will be "now there is a law, and the business of combating hate propaganda is the job of policemen and magistrates". Not so. The job of combating hate propaganda is, and always must be, the job of every citizen. To enact a law is to invite the citizen to slough off his responsibilities, to hand over to his paid servants the moral burden which is his alone. I would prefer to see individual citizens -from the highest to the lowest-constantly confront and shout down the hatemonger and the bigot, rather than permit them to bask in the illusion that the forces of law and order, by prosecuting a few sad individuals, have obliterated prejudice.
In closing, I intend to say something which may surprise some hon. members. I should be delighted to find that my opinions with regard to this bill are wrong. I expect that the bill will pass. If it does, I devoutly hope that it will serve a worthy purpose by reducing the flow of hate literature in Canada and reducing the level of hatred in Canada, slight though it may be. But such is not my expectation and I shall therefore vote against this measure. I thank all hon. members for their attention.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, this bill has been the occasion for some speeches of a very high calibre on both sides of the subject. It has led to declarations of continuing faith in the democratic process and in the freedoms which are basic to that process. I have been particularly pleased, indeed, elated, by the fact that all hon. members who have spoken, whatever their side, have recognized the sincerity of all other hon. members and have contributed on the assumption that every one of us is as concerned about basic freedoms as is every other member. This attitude has led to the discussion of the merits of the enactment of this legislation free from the usual tangents which often affect us in debate.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
I was therefore rather disappointed once or twice this afternoon when references of a

April 9, 1970
Hate Propaganda
political party character were made and accusations or innuendos expressed to the effect that the bill is before the House for political reasons-for the defence of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), of some other minister, or something of that sort.
I am in favour of the bill. I have expressed my support of it on a number of occasions, but because of the very attractive speech delivered by the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) I beg the indulgence of members of the House to express once again my reasons for supporting the bill.
As a matter of fact, the right hon. member for Prince Albert himself gave us the reason the bill is of value. In defining what freedom means to him, he said-I think I am quoting him correctly, if not word for word-that "it means to me the right to be wrong and not to do wrong". May I say in passing that, like all of us in this House, the right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert uses his right to be wrong quite often.
It is precisely because freedom means the right to be wrong, and not the right to do wrong, that it forms the basis, at least as far as I am concerned, of the bill that is now before the House. It draws a distinction between the two. A lot of words have been used in this House about attempting to legislate hatred out of people, to legislate evil out of people, and so on. No one has suggested the bill is designed to do that. Those who say that we who support this kind of legislation are thinking that the kingdom of heaven will be on earth the moment this legislation passes take us to be much more naive than we are.
No legislation will legislate evil or hatred out of the hearts and minds of those who have it. Indeed, I venture to suggest-I hope I do not sound too pessimistic-that so long as human organization continues to exist there will be prejudice, and that on occasion that prejudice will be turned into hatred in the hearts of some people. It is an historical and sociological fact that the majority in a society feels uncomfortable in the presence of a minority. It is an historical and sociological fact that a foreign element in a situation creates discomfort around it.
In every era in society there has been prejudice and hatred which has been based on religion, on colour, on race. I think it would be almost naively impertinent to think that we could ever eradicate the presence of prej-
udice and hatred by one group of another or by one person of another, and no one is attempting to do this.
What society has progressed in doing-and Canada is one of the best societies in this regard-is in persuading people in society, in legislating laws in society, which seek to limit the spread of both prejudice and hatred. This, in my opinion, is the very modest purpose that the bill seeks to serve. It does not seek to eradicate hatred or prejudice but seeks, both through the executive power of the law and through the educative power of the law, to limit to some extent the spread of hatred and prejudice.
No one in this House has greater regard for the civil liberties fences erected by the right hon. member for Prince Albert. But I say to him that his definition of freedom and the kind of-I was going to say self-righteous but perhaps that would be unfair to him-the kind of possessive way in which he talked about freedom, does not impress me very much. He was good enough to say when he left the chamber that he would be back when I was speaking. I do not blame him for not coming back; I just regret having to say this in his absence.
The southern racists in the United States believe that freedom gives them the right to have white children educated in one school and black children educated in another school. That is their definition of freedom. If the law did not intervene, they would exercise that "freedom" and continue to segregate the white from the black.
Take the case of the landlord in Ontario who says of his property: "My freedom in this society gives me the right to decide whether or not I am going to rent my property to one person or another. I do not intend to rent it to a Jew or to a Negro. If you pass a law which forces me to rent it to a Jew or to a Negro, you are interfering with my freedom", says this dark ages landlord.
The right hon. gentleman spoke a great deal about freedom and then patted himself on the back for wanting to keep Jerry Rubin out of Canada because he wished to come to this country to make speeches of which the right hon. member disapproves. The history of society is full of definitions of freedom, and they are used to serve whatever purpose people in society want them to serve. Appeals to freedom are as numerous, and frequently are as spurious, as quotations from the scripture that are used to satisfy and justify all kinds of acts.
April 9, 1970

What we are discussing here is not the question of freedom in any meaningful sense of the word. I have never known a piece of legislation that has been so misrepresented across the country as has this piece of legislation. I do not often get home early enough to listen to the program "Viewpoint" after the eleven o'clock television news, but I did happen to watch it last night. I heard an editor of the Globe and Mail, a man I do not know but who I am sure is a fine Canadian, and who I am told was, before he became an editor, a member of the cloth, I think a minister of the United Church of Canada.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Don't hold that against him.


David Lewis: I don't hold anything against him except what he said. That gentleman, with the smug omniscience that a combination of minister and editorial writer makes possible said to the people of Canada: "You know, Pierre Burton is saying bad things about the members of Jehovah's Witnesses who will not permit their children to have blood transfusions. He can do that now with impunity, but one month from now he will be in jail if he says this".
I say to this editorial writer for the Globe and Mail that he does not know what he is talking about. He has not read the bill. He is indulging in hyperbole, in distortion, in misrepresentation, and he is not serving the people of Canada in any sense of the word. What kind of nonsense is this! Where in this bill is there this kind of prohibition?


Stanley Howard Knowles: It
provides the very opposite.


David Lewis: The bill provides, first of all, that in order to be convicted or to stand a chance of being convicted under the terms of this bill the Crown has to prove that the statements complained of are made in public; that they are calculated to promote hatred of an identifiable group; that the intention of the person making the statements is to promote and evoke hatred of an identifiable group, a minority in our society.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
Then, it provides the defence that any decent discussion on a religious subject is a defence against any charge under this bill. So, there is no such possibility of Pierre Berton being in trouble for saying this, at least. I do not know what else Pierre may be in trouble about, but at least in this case he has nothing to worry about.
Hate Propaganda
The same thing has happened in this House. It is easy to say this is terrible legislation and it will prevent this and that, but the fact is that these statements are incorrect, they are not true. They make a mockery of plain English when they are presented to this House and the people of Canada.
The right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert indulges in his usual attractive hyperbole when he reminds this House that a similar law was passed by the U.S.S.R. in 1919, I do not know, maybe it was; I have not the slightest notion. However, he does not tell this House what every member who has read the special report on hate propaganda knows now, that this law was passed by the United Kingdom, by Norway, Sweden, Denmark, France and Switzerland, indeed by every democracy in Europe which does not take second place to the democratic declarations of the right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert or to the democratic declarations of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) or anyone else in this House or in this country. Is it suggested that the people in all these countries in western Europe have not got as much regard for freedom and democratic rights as we have? What really is the sense and the purpose of a leading member of the Canadian community and in this House trying to besmirch and smear this legislation by reference to some law in a Communist country in 1919? What is the purpose of it, Mr. Speaker? Is that the way this kind of debate should be carried on? Is that the way to place this matter before the House and the people of Canada?
I have in my hand a copy of the relevant sections of the Race Relations Act of 1965 of the United Kingdom passed by the House of Commons, if my memory serves me correctly, with the approval and support in principle of the Conservative opposition at the time as well as the Labour government, and passed by the House of Lords which still has a majority, or at least a very large number of Conservatives in it. It reads:
A person shall be guilty of an offence under this section if, with intent to stir up hatred against any section of the public in Great Britain distinguished by colour, race, or ethnic or national origins-*
(a)	he publishes or distributes written matter which is threatening, abusive or insulting: or
(b)	he uses in any public place or at any public meeting words which are threatening, abusive or insulting, being matter or words likely to stir up hatred against that section on grounds of colour, race, or ethnic or national origins.
In substance this is precisely the kind of legislation that is now before this House,

April 9, 1970
Hate Propaganda
passed by the mother of parliaments to which the right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert pays the greatest respect and attention, headed by the monarch to whom the right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert pays the homage which the monarch obviously deserves. This is the parliament that passed the kind of legislation which is now before the House, and I think it is a little less than fair and a little less than the fairness of which the right hon. gentleman is usually capable to refer to this legislation as being compared with legislation in the Soviet Union. The fact is, as I have said, all other democratic countries in western Europe have passed similar legislation.
What is this bill all about, Mr. Speaker? Perhaps we ought to spend a minute on that in view of some of the statements I have heard-


John Napier Turner: Or read.


David Lewis: -or read. What is this bill about? It prohibits the spread, or the advocacy or promotion of genocide. I do not expect that section of this bill will ever have to be used in Canada although, as I shall say in a moment, one can never be certain. But, we undertook an international obligation to put this kind of thing into legislation. As a country we solemnly signed and ratified an international convention on genocide passed by the United Nations, and undertook in that convention to pass this kind of legislation. This section is no more than the fulfilment of our international obligations.
As I said the other day on another subject, the cynical disregard for international obligations is the curse of humanity today, and if we take one small mincing step in fulfilling an obligation under an international convention, then I cannot understand any member of this House questioning this.
The second offence is, and forgive me for reading some of the actual words, because they have been so misrepresented:
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-
Is anyone suggesting that it is improper to put into the Criminal Code a prohibition against the incitement of hatred that leads to a breach of the peace? Is there anyone here who suggests that there is something wrong in that or that there is an interference with freedom of speech when the Parliament of Canada prohibits this kind of behaviour?

If you will permit me as a lawyer, Mr. Speaker, let me indicate to you how false have been the editorials in certain papers and some of the speeches in trying to interpret this. A prosecuting attorney on a charge under this section will not have an easy time. He has to prove first that the statement was communicated in a public place, that the statement incited hatred and that the statement incited such hatred that is likely to lead to a breach of the peace. There are safeguards right in there, I suggest to you. That is not an interference with freedom in any meaningful sense. That is a provision and a necessary addition to the Criminal Code.
I think perhaps at this point I should call it five o'clock. I will have to continue in the evening.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. 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, private bills, notices of motions (papers) and public bills.



PRIVATE BILLS


Mr. Philip G. Givens (York West) moved: that Bill S-18, respecting Brunner Corporation (Canada) Limited, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills and Standing Orders.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in addressing myself to the second reading of this bill, I want to make it amply clear to the House that I am not connected with this company either directly or indirectly as an officer or shareholder. My name is attached to this bill simply because I was visited by the president and another official of the company which has a branch plant in my constituency. They asked me to be the sponsor of this bill as a result of representations they made to me.
I do not know how much detail hon. members of the House would like me to go into on this subject, but the sole purpose of the bill is to revive the charter of the company. What happened was that during the period between August 8, 1956 and June 6, 1968 there was a comptroller or official of this company whose responsibility it was to make the annual returns, including tax returns, for the compa-
April 9, 1970

Labour Conditions
ny. He had a psychological block about bureaucracy and governmental returns. He just did not make them. Even though there were reminders from the government under Section 125 of the Canada Corporations Act, he failed to make the returns and as a result the charter lapsed. Therefore, the company was placed in this very invidious position.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
The purpose of this bill is merely to restore the charter to the company, so that the company may be returned to the position it was in prior to the difficulty in respect of the filing of these returns. The tax obligations and liabilities of this company would remain as before. There are no privileges to be granted to the company. The company could make application for a new charter, but the difficulty and expense involved in doing so would probably result, in so far as the branch plant in my constituency is concerned, in the company going out of business. I, therefore, pray that the House entertain this bill and pass it for the reasons I have indicated.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?


Philip Gerald Givens: Certainly.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Could the hon. member tell us whether the comptroller has been fired or whether the company has the same comptroller.


Philip Gerald Givens: He has become as functus as the charter. He is no longer with the company.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, this is another example of the type of bill which I think the government is very foolish in pushing to this level. I accept the explanation given because it sounds illogically logical and, of course, the company would have been put to a great deal of expense to obtain a new charter. I have been involved in considerable discussion in respect of other bills concerning companies which were placed in this position. It was my understanding that the department would take a look at the situation to determine whether the companies involved were interested in maintaining their charter. Such action would make this type of operation unnecessary. There is an expenditure involved here of a considerable amount of money. I do not think this should be necessary. I think the companies branch should have to give a good explanation, because this would seem to be an exercise in futility.
As I remember the last such episode, the instructions given to the branch were that the company would be contacted to determine whether or not it wished to retain its charter. If the company did wish to retain its charter, then a penalty or whatever action was necessary could be applied. In this way the situation could be handled through the normal administrative procedures necessary for reinstatement. It seems to me that by following the procedure we have here we are putting many people, including the hon. member for York West (Mr. Givens) in a difficult position. The hon. member has already pointed out the position in which he has been put.
In my opinion, when this bill is discussed before the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills and Standing Orders, the officials of the department should be asked to give a pretty good reason for having taken this particular step. I do not believe this procedure is a desirable one. I would think that there should be an alternative administrative procedure which should be adhered to by officials of the department.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills and Standing Orders.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the Department of Labour's review of the minimum wage and its effect on the Canadian economy referred to by the Minister of Labour on November 3, 1969, as recorded in Hansard at page 402.
He said: Mr. Speaker, as will be clear from the terms of the motion which has just been read-and if I am speaking slowly it is to give the parliamentary secretary, who has just come in, time to catch his breath-it is moved because on November 3, 1969, as recorded at page 402 of Hansard, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) gave us a piece of information that was quite interesting. He was answering one of many questions put to him about the possibility of raising the minimum wage as set out in the Canada Labour (Standards) Code. He said this:
The department is now concluding a departmental review of the minimum wage and its effect on the

April 9, 1970
Labour Conditions
Canadian economy and, particularly, its effect on programs financed jointly by the provinces and the federal government.
Mr. Speaker, in this age of participatory democracy, Information Canada, public involvement in the decision-making process and all these other things, it seems to me it is a most reasonable request for us to ask that this review, which the Department of Labour has made, be made public. Obviously this is not a document which sets out a policy or any secrets the government may have. We are told it is a review of the minimum wage and the effect of the minimum wage on the Canadian economy. Frankly, we would be much happier if instead of having a review, a white paper, or a document of this kind, we could have a bill amending the appropriate legislation, but as these things take time I ask why we should not be taken into the confidence of the government concerning what it has learned in this study.
Only today during the question period the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) took some credit for the government's policy of issuing a white paper on taxation. The Prime Minister went so far as to say the government was encouraged not necessarily by the substance of the replies it is receiving but by the fact that the people of Canada like to become involved in the decision-making process.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
If that is the motto of this government, why not practice it? I suppose that there are times when we ask for certain documents that may have some confidential element in them, and hence there may be times when the government's refusal to acquiesce in a request that we make has some merit. Surely, that does not apply in this case. What we have here is a study of the minimum wage and the effect it has on our economy. Public money has been spent in conducting this study. Presumably it has been reduced to some kind of writing. I think that we ought to have it, and that is why I put this motion on the order paper. When it was called on November 26, 1969, the government asked me to withdraw it. That, of course, is just a way of provoking one to transfer it for debate.
It is not my intention now to indulge in lengthy debate or to divide the House on this as though it were the biggest issue that ever hit Parliament, but it does seem to me that my request, even though I make it in a low Key, is one that ought to be met. Surely, if there is something to the idea that we should know what is going on, here is a case in

point. This whole business of how much government information is made available to the public has been put many times in a simple statement, namely that we should move from the era in which the government gave out nothing unless it absolutely had to, into an era in which the government should give out everything except something that it must absolutely keep secret.
I am told that there are members in the cabinet who argue for the latter position and argue for it very strongly. There are members in the cabinet who try to get the government to adopt the position, under which the people of Canada would be entitled to have every bit of information which the government has, unless there is something for which there are good, sound reasons for maintaining secrecy. I do not see how any reason, good, sound or otherwise, can be advanced for keeping this review secret. I hope now that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour (Mr. McNulty) has caught his breath he will be able to rise and say that the decision has now been made to grant this motion. Having done so, we can rise and call it a good afternoon.


Mr. Jim McNulty (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: I know the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has been around this chamber for quite a few decades and I am quite sure he is expecting to hear what I am going to say. This motion refers to the Department of Labour review of the minimum wage and its effect on the Canadian economy referred to by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) on November 3, 1969 as recorded in Hansard at page 402. As I mentioned last November 26, 1969, a study was prepared as a confidential internal working paper for the use of members of the Department of Labour, and I would again respectfully ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my view the nays have it.
April 9, 1970


Stanley Howard Knowles: On
division.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion is negatived on division.
Motion (Mr. Knowles, Winnipeg North Centre) negatived.


Mr. Yves Forest (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: I believe there would be general agreement to calling it six o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being six o'clock, 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 the motion of Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton) for the third reading of Bill C-3, to amend the Criminal Code.
David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, at five o'clock I was dealing with some of the clauses of the bill in an attempt to point out that the purport and effect of the bill, no doubt in good faith, have been widely misrepresented outside the House and to some extent, in my opinion, by some hon. members in the House. I had finished dealing with the second offence created in the bill, and now I want to say a word about the third offence and ask hon. members who feel uneasy about the bill whether their uneasiness is really justified.
In effect this measure prohibits public communication of statements which wilfully promote hatred against any identifiable group. I wish hon. members and some editorial writers would read the pertinent clause and not precisely what it says. First, it excludes any private conversation. Second, it prohibits the communication of statements which wilfully promote hatred. No matter how you define the word "wilful" in a particular situation,
Hate Propaganda
obviously what this bill says in simple English is that anyone who sets out to make statements deliberately intended to promote hatred against a race, or a group identified by racial or religious aspects, is committing an offence. It is not, therefore, saying something about Jehovah's Witnesses being wrong in not permitting their children to take blood transfusions. It is not any interference with anything that I or anyone else may want to say about Jews, Negroes, Catholics or Protestants.
In order to come within the ambit of this clause I have to say something dirty or scurrilous, and not merely say something dirty or scurrilous but say it with the intention of promoting hatred-say it in such a way, in such circumstances and in such a context that the court can find I deliberately intended to promote hatred against the identifiable group.
I ask hon. members, where is that an interference with my legitimate freedom?
As I said earlier, I listened with great interest to the speech made this afternoon by the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker). I do not have his exact words, but I agree with him when he says freedom is the right to say something of which the majority may disapprove and with which the majority may disagree. Of course that is what freedom means. But then he added "subject to libel"; in other words, that I have the freedom to say something with which the majority may disagree, but subject to the laws of libel. Mr. Speaker, I say to the right hon. gentleman that the bill which he condemns so strongly is nothing more than a projection of the libel laws, from libel against an individual to libel against an identifiable group. The limitation which he himself placed upon the extent to which I can say something, namely, that it is subject to the laws of libel, is precisely the exception that this bill provides. It provides nothing more than that exception.
So what, in heaven's name, is all this misreading of the plain language of the bill which is before the House? True, the language may be improved. The bill may be misinterpreted by a court. I am a lawyer by profession; I have appeared in courts. Many times courts have interpreted language in a way which I disapproved in cases which I lost. If they had interpreted the language in what I considered to be the right way, obviously I would have won. It is quite conceivable that some court will misinterpret the language of this bill. It is quite conceivable that

April 9, 1970
Hate Propaganda
some magistrate or judge will read into its language what this Parliament does not intend and will apply the law in a wrong way. That is why we have the appeal process in this country, so that higher courts will be able to look at a wrong decision and correct it. But because a law might be misinterpreted and abused by a court does not in itself condemn the law.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
There is not a single law on the statute books that has not been misinterpreted, if I may say so, by some court or judge; because judges-and I say this bearing in mind that I might have to appear before them from time to time, although my parliamentary duties do not permit it too often-


John Napier Turner: Careful!


David Lewis: May I say, without being careful, that judges are human beings and they are no less capable of error, and probably no less capable of prejudice than any other human being, and therefore they may misapply the law. But what has that to do with the law itself and the merits of the bill before the House? Time and time again hon. members who have spoken have said, as have people who have written against this bill, that there is no immediate and present danger. In what way is that an argument against the bill? I suggest to this House, to the people of Canada and through you, Mr. Speaker, to hon. members of this House, that it is much wiser, much safer to introduce this kind of law when there is no crisis, when there is no present and immediate danger, than when there is a crisis.
When you introduce laws of this sort that try to order the behaviour of individuals and organizations in society at a time of impending danger, at a time of crisis, that is when they go overboard. If these laws come before the courts in times of crisis or panic, that is when they are misapplied, abused and misinterpreted. You hear the most sensible discussion of a law like this in times like these precisely because the danger is not so great as to make people too anxious, too obstinate and too inflexible. The law is before us now and it is good to know it is here at this time.
The right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert displayed great glee in referring to Frank Scott's presentation to the Senate committee. Let me say that Frank Scott and I worked together, as hon. members know, for many years. We have been personal friends, if I

may say this now, because my age is well known as a result of many columns in the press of this country-


John Napier Turner: For 40
years.


David Lewis: -for 40 years. I have known Frank Scott and his delightful and talented wife for 40 years. We worked together in the CCF. In 1943 we wrote a book together.


John Napier Turner: It couldn't have been a best seller.


David Lewis: It was a best seller, let me inform the Minister of Justice. Indeed it was a best seller, and it had a very important title which is relevant to the present situation. I point my finger at the treasury benches when I say that the title was, "Make This Your Canada".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: Professor Scott and I have worked together for years. He was national chairman of the CCF when I was national secretary. I have the greatest respect for him and I hope he has some respect for me. But I disagree with him. He is no more infallible in his thinking than is the right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert, the Minister of Justice or anybody else. Frank Scott is capable of being influenced by a concentration of thought along one line, as all people are. When you concentrate your thoughts, energies and emotions along one line you are just as likely as anyone else, even if you are the most intelligent man in the country-and Frank Scott is one of the most intelligent men in our country-to be blinded as to other lines and other aspects of life. I say my friend Frank is guilty of just that in respect of this bill.
The hon. member for Coast Chilcotin (Mr. St. Pierre) quoted Harry Arthurs, another person I know very well and like to call my friend. What did Harry Arthurs say? He said that if we pass this law we will give people the illusion that everything has been done to stop prejudice and hatred and that they do not need to do anything else. That was the effect of what the hon. member read. I say to my friend Professor Arthurs that he is talking balderdash. Nobody is suggesting that that is what is intended. There is not a law on tire statute books that stops the activities of ordinary citizens and ordinary organizations.
Just because you have a law that says society requires you not to do certain things,
April 9. 1970

56S5
does that mean that groups in society are not capable of constantly educating people along certain lines? I say to Professor Arthurs that the contrary of what he says is true-that when the law embodies the moral conscience of society, the likelihood is greater that active citizen groups will continue to do good work and the effectiveness of their work will be greater. This is historically true. Because it is now possible to base activities on the provisions of this bill, the educational and other work of citizens and groups will go on more effectively.
I am not an alarmist, but I also am a member of a minority group of this country and other countries.


An hon. Member:: A member of the NDP.


David Lewis: I am a member of an identifiable minority group in this country and other countries, and I must admit that I am constantly aware of what happened under Hitler to people of my identifiable group. I am amazed at the complacency with which people say, "Oh, there are just a few lunatics in this country now; what are you worried about? Are you worrying about these fringe-lunatics. Don't worry about them." In 1922 and 1923, Mr. Speaker, there were a few fringe-lunatics in Germany concentrated in one city. No one took them seriously. They were looked upon with contempt and disdain and every political party in Germany in the early 1920s, including the party which I would support, the Social Democrats, said, "This is nonsense. We do not have to worry about this lunatic fringe. No intelligent people such as ours will fall for this kind of thing." Well, Mr. Speaker, they fell; and as a result the world was thrust into a world war and Poles, Ukrainians and Jews were murdered by the million. So what is all this complacency about?
I say to hon. members that Canadians, as far as I am concerned, are the best people on earth. But they are human beings and history shows that racial antagonism is present in practically all of us. Let us be honest with ourselves about it. If adverse social and economic circumstances appear, if there is a recession or economic difficulty, or if there are national problems such as we face in Canada today with two different languages, it is quite possible for racial difficulties to come to the surface as they have in the United States and in other countries. To anyone who says complacently, "We in Canada are incapable of this," I say, not as an alarmist but as
Hate Propaganda
an historian, "you are deluding yourself." There is no people in the world that is not capable of collective evil.
I mentioned once before in remarks in this House the title of a book written by a theologian, Reinhold Niebur, professor of Christian ethics at a well-known theological seminary in New York. He wrote a book entitled, "Moral Man and Immoral Society". The purport of the book was to indicate to humanity that individuals who are individually decent people, who live as individuals without any of the meanness that is regrettable in human behaviour, will when objective circumstances create panic and the kind of hysteria that can be created by difficulties and conflicts become in the mass an indecent and evil mob.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
That is true of every southerner in the United States who has helped to lynch Negroes. I am sure that at home every one of them is decent to his wife, children, dog and neighbour; he is proud of the fact that he goes to church on Sunday and that he does not steal or swear. However, when the mass of the southern whites get together in a context which governs their hearts and minds, they tear a human being apart. This is the historical fact. It is the historical fact with every group and with every society in every part of the world. Every race, white, black or yellow, is capable of this kind of evil. If it does not occur, it is because of the educational influence in our society; the influence of broader, deeper feeling and thinking in our society. It is also because of the influence of the laws in our society which lay down the standards of behaviour of people, whether in the civil code or criminal code of any country.
These are the safeguards against evils which are capable of being produced in any society anywhere in the world. These evils are fewer in our society than many others: this is why I am proud to be a Canadian. However, I do not fool myself by thinking that there is not anti-Semitism in parts of this country. I know there are people who are anti-Semitic. There are Protestants who hate the Catholics, Catholics who hate the Protestants, English-speaking Canadians who hate the "Frogs", and French-speaking Canadians who hate the English. I do not try to fool myself; these elements are present in our society and in every other society. It is a recognition of these facts and an appreciation of these elements in any group of human beings that makes it necessary for a wise Parliament to



S6SE COMMONS DEBATES

[Stage Direction]
April 9, 1970
Hate Propaganda
try to pass laws which will, to some extent at least, limit the spread of prejudice and hatred.
As I said earlier today, this is all I claim for this bill. I think this is all the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) claims for this bill. No one with any sense will claim that this bill will eradicate hatred from people's hearts, or prejudice from people's minds. No one is naive enough to think that. As I said earlier, it is probably impossible by any means ever to eradicate prejudice which may lead to hatred, but it is possible for organized society intelligently to take steps to limit that prejudice and hatred, particularly the deliberate spreading of hatred of an identifiable group.
There is nothing more reprehensible or corrosive of human behaviour and human decency in this world than racism. In my opinion there is nothing more evil, nothing lower in human behaviour than to regard another human being with disrespect and contempt because of race or religion. There is nothing more evil in society, and that evil should be dealt with. This bill deals in a modest way with preventing the deliberate spreading of hatred against an identifiable group. If the bill is read properly, objectively and honestly it will be seen that it does not interfere with any freedom, it does not interfere with any individual rights, it does interfere with the evil which racism presents to the world. I hope it will be overwhelmingly adopted by this House.
Mr. Real Caouetie (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with great interest to the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis), and I also heard this afternoon the statement by the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker). The member who has just resumed his seat is perfectly right when he says that hatred should not exist, and I share his opinion fully. However, we must acknowledge the fact that hatred does exist in nearly all the countries of the world, precisely because some people will not admit that a human being, whether he be white, yellow, brown or black, whether he holds Catholic, Baptist or Pentecostal beliefs, has a right to existence.
We believe there is a God. The Roman Catholics believe it, as well as the Protestants and the followers of various other churches. There is only one God and everyone imagines Him according to the religion to which he belongs. However, one should not forget that all human beings, wherever they

may be, have an undeniable right to life and to respect, but that, on the other hand, they must respect others.
The hon. member was speaking about hatred. There are people who are full of hatred in Canada and in all other countries. The hon. member for York South told us that he was a member of a minority group, but I think he feels well respected in Canada. In a country where he would belong to the majority group and which is called Israel, hatred is also to be found. When we hear about the skirmishes and the wars now taking place between Arabs and Jews and between Lebanese and Jews, we surely can say that hatred does exist there also.
Hatred was prevalent in the Congo a few years ago, and in Biafra fairly recently.
People kill one another precisely because they have lost their sense of values and respect. When we note what is going on in Viet Nam, it is not really edifying. Every evening on television, we can see films showing us small children, mothers and old people covered with blood, on account of a revolution, hatred and misunderstanding.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
As far as our country is concerned, as the right hon. member for Prince Albert said this afternoon, we are afraid to prevent hate-mongers from entering Canada. We already have our own hatemongers, but we see fit to import a few.
The moment a socialist, a rebel or a revolutionary sets foot on Canadian soil, he is invited to express his opinions on the CBC network, in English and in French. Visits by such people are given the full headline treatment by newspapers.
The federal Department of Immigration gave permission to teachers from Algeria, France and other countries to enter Canada, knowing full well their intention was to teach revolution to our children.
We can see the results today. In certain universities or CEGEPs, young people have been stirred up. The professors we have allowed to enter Canada in the name of freedom and because, we said, everyone is entitled to his opinions, have never lived so well in their own country as they do in Canada.
Not satisfied with their higher living standard in Canada, they seek to reduce it or, at least, to sow the seeds of complete destruction which will be a reality in a few years the way things are going.
April 9, 1970



Bill C-3 is a monument to inconsequence. Indeed, in the name of freedom, we accept in Canada foreign professors who are full of hate, embittered and unreasonable. We welcome them in the name of freedom. Once accepted, they start sowing the seeds of destruction. Then, when destruction has begun, Bill C-3 is introduced with these words: Now, for the sake of freedom, this bill to eradicate hate publicity or propaganda must be passed. That is the illogical gesture of a legislator, of a government reluctant to assume responsibilities.
In the name of liberty, rebels are accepted, and warned: Be careful. If you nurture hatred, you will be arrested and thrown into jail for four or five years.
I will give an example. I am not referring to a Jew from Israel or to a Russian from the USSR, or to the American, Carmichael, or to Castro. I will just take an example in the city of Montreal, 110 miles from Ottawa.
A man by the name of Michel Chartrand was on parliament hill this afternoon, accompanied by a group of some 100 people whom he was haranguing in front of the main Parliament building, using the language of a coward, a vulgar rascal, a foul-mouthed boor, attacking everyone, respecting no one, swearing more stupidly than the lumberjacks of old who were a match for anyone when it came to cursing.
Mr. Chartrand was on parliament hill this afternoon, blaming the authority, any authority, for he has no respect for anybody. Mr. Chartrand could not carry on like that for five minutes in Cuba, a country which he adores, or in Russia, where there already is a political system which he would like to force on us here. Mr. Chartrand would be facing a firing squad less than two hours after saying what he said this afternoon to those gathered in front of the parliament building.
Mr. Speaker, he was behaving like a lunatic and what is more pitiful is that this dangerous mad man was accompanied by family men, truck drivers from Montreal with children 10, 12 or 15 years old, who are ashamed for their children to hear the remarks made by a scatterbrain like Michel Chartrand, and who have been led to a dead-end, because the union leaders tell them: "Either you follow us or you are scabs. You are in this with us or we will smash you. That is, in effect, what has happened in Montreal, where they have destroyed private property, smashing trucks, slashing tires and attacking truck drivers who were delivering the mail.
Hate Propaganda
Union leaders like Chartrand are dangerous men because with hate in their hearts they have no other purpose than to destroy Canadian society. The government is afraid when he sees that.
In the name of freedom let us allow anarchy and tolerate scatterbrains like Chartrand and company. Let us put up with all that and then let us pass legislation like Bill C-3, because society must be protected. Let us permit its destruction in order to protect it afterwards. There is the inconsistency of the present situation.
Mr. Speaker, threats are made when we denounce hate mongers. Yet, mind you, it is not with hate that I condemn Chartrand but solely because I want to state the facts. I nurse no grudge against him. I even wish him to go to heaven, but if only he could get there a little faster.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Réal Caouette: However, there is a limit in seeing such people rouse employers against workers and vice versa, people who will stop at nothing and who go as far as saying: If bombs must be used, let us use them.
The other paradox is the publicity which is given those people. I might be accused of making publicity for Chartrand, but at least I am telling the truth about him.
It has certainly been noticed that CBC cameras were there this afternoon. In fact there were three or four of them. The cameramen were not responsible for that; they had been instructed by the Corporation to be there in order to take photographs of all those who were present. Tonight at eleven we will perhaps hear the enlightening remarks made by Chartrand this afternoon when he uttered the worst curse words, and blamed everyone. The other day the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau) himself was jeered at by the same fellow here in front of the parliament building. I do not intend to defend the Prime Minister of Canada as a man, or as the leader of the Liberal party, but as Prime Minister of Canada. Whoever he is, Pierre Elliott Trudeau, Robert Stanfield, Tommy Douglas or Real Caouette, the Prime Minister is, as it were, the symbol of Canada throughout the world and, of course, in Canada in particular.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Réal Caouette: Thus, he deserves respect. Does Chartrand show any respect for him? The Prime Minister leaves the House to meet Chartrand who says to him: "Yes, you are
56S8

April 9, 1970
Hate Propaganda
well protected, you have your bouncers with you". Of course, this went with a lot of swearing.
Mr. Speaker, I do not say that Chartrand should be shot as he would certainly be in Cuba if he acted the way he does in Canada but I say that he should be brought to his senses, to reason.
[DOT] (8:40 p.ra.)
Chartrand stirs up the workers. As for me, I ask the Prime Minister yesterday whether he was considering the possibility of giving Chartrand the contract for mail delivery in Montreal that he might hire men and prove that he is smarter than the others as an employer. That would be one solution. Mr. Chartrand could have tendered for the mail delivery contract in Montreal. Anyone could. Why did he not do so? He does not assume his responsibilities. It is easy to blame those who accept them.
That is a case of hatred. It is to be found in several other sectors. When there are strikes here and there in Canada, hatred is present. Individuals are stirred one against the other, but the system that is responsible for it all is left alone. It is ignored, no one speaks about it.
Bills are introduced to check hate literature and genocide. We agree with those who say: down with racism, long live humanity. Still, the necessary steps must be taken to uproot the causes of racism. Once the people, the whole world, have been brought around to understanding that the individual is entitled to respect, there will no longer be such tragedies as we now witness in several countries.
Even here, in Parliament, pro-Biafran members joined battle with pro-Nigerian members. Even now, Canadians are wrestling with each other. Separatism and the Quebec rebels are feared while there are rebels in Ontario and in other provinces.
Bottles were thrown at the Prime Minister at the time of the Saint-Jean-Baptiste parade in Montreal. Rotten wheat was thrown right into his face in Saskatchewan. So there are people in revolt throughout Canada. Why? Precisely because our economic system does not enable us to live decently. While citizens are lighting against each other, while employers are finding fault with workers and the latter with employers, capitalists sleep in peace and are well off. They have no trouble because they finance both sides and get much out of both. So as long as that is profitable, the system works.

Wars were waged that way. Even in the United States, people are worrying about the end of the war in Yiet Nam, as cannon manufacturers would not only be deprived of their profits but the spectre of unemployment would show itself. It seems strange to think that there is money in the United States to pay soldiers but not to enable the unemployed to live decently. Is that logical? That is what is happening nevertheless.
Twenty-six billion dollars are spent annually for the war in Viet Nam. Canons, shells and other destructive devices are manufactured and aircraft built to bomb innocent people. Money is no object. However, if all servicemen were sent back home to the United States, they would be told that there is no more money to enable them to live decently. How strange! There is money to enable them to live over there, where they are sowing destruction, but there is none in the United States to enable them to live in peace at home. The system is as stupid as that.
Besides, the same system exists in Canada. In Canada the problem is a financial one. If there ever comes a day when money is at the service of human beings, there will be greater understanding. When people have the right to live, to have a house, a car, a garden or a farm of their own, when they feel at home, the danger of a revolution does not exist any more.
However, when people are dead broke, as they are at the present time in Canada, where the unemployed number over 650,000, the situation is far from satisfactory. These people have not asked to be unemployed. They know that Canada could afford to give them a decent living. However, they find it impossible to live decently in our country, said to be the richest in the world. In such a juncture, the seeds of revolution make their way among the masses.
The needs of revolution and communism find their way into those poverty stricken homes. Little by little, the idea develops. We had an enlightening example this afternoon, with that lunatic Chartrand, on parliament hill.
Mr. Speaker, as legislators, we have responsibilities. The government has even more serious and obvious responsibilities since it is in charge of the nation's business. However, all political parties and all members of parliament also have their own responsibilities. Their first responsibility is to tell the truth, to be honest and to propose solutions that will not promote hatred, but will allow individuals
April 9, 1970

to understand each other better, whatever their origin might be, French, English, Jewish, Ukrainian or Polish.
The day people feel at home in Canada, individuals, fathers and mothers of families, then we will be prepared to defend our interests. And if all are ready to defend their interests, we shall have in Canada a true association of human beings instead of racism, religious feud and struggle between management and labour.
We shall be able to avoid that useless fighting. There will be different opinions, of course, and as many of them as there are individual members in the House. A human being is a world in itself. There is no such thing in Canada as two identical human beings. Therefore, let us try to set up a social, economic and political pattern allowing every human being to be himself, and to thrive freely according to his or her own aspirations, ability and will. Then and only then shall we have in Canada a just society, an understanding society, a society which will have no need for Bill C-3.
We need Bill C-3 because our House is a mess. We need a bill against hatred because there is cause for hatred. Let us suppress the cause and we shall achieve better results. We shall turn the Canadian people into a united nation living in a strong Canada which will stand as an example before the world.


Mr. Ian Wahn (St. Paul's):: Mr. Speaker, quite properly this bill has provoked thoughtful and serious debate because it deals with an extremely difficult problem: how best can we protect minority groups against criminal defamation and incitement to hatred without endangering one of our greatest rights, freedom of speech? I readily understand why many members sincerely oppose this legislation; it is because they are afraid that in our desire to curb hate propaganda we may in some way impair or even destroy our most precious heritage, the right of free speech and discussion which we have taken centuries to win and to guarantee. We must protect freedom of speech. But we must also protect minority groups against hate propaganda, and we must fulfil our international commitments to outlaw genocide and racial discrimination.
This legislation which we are now considering is our attempt to reconcile these objectives, and I wish to record my strong support of it. This bill is not an assault on freedom of speech; it is designed to fill gaps in existing
Hate Propaganda
laws to prevent criminal defamation and incitements to breaches of the peace, and also to fulfil our international commitments to outlaw genocide and discrimination. I should like to make that the theme of my brief remarks this evening.
As a lawyer with great admiration for the way in which our legal system has evolved gradually over the years, I believed at one time that our existing law provided adequate protection against hate propaganda. However, the evidence presented to the special committee appointed in 1965 to study hate propaganda changed my views, and in the last Parliament I introduced a private member's bill designed to achieve the same purposes as this bill that we are considering.
The fact is that a great deal of propaganda is continually being directed against minority groups in Canada, usually Black, Jewish or Catholic. I myself have received hate propaganda and I am quite sure that most members from urban ridings have. For that reason I believe it is important that a bill such as this should be passed, and with a large majority, as a ringing declaration that this Parliament condemns all attempts to stir up hatred against any of the large number of minority groups which form part of our multicultural society.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
Some members have said you cannot outlaw hatred by passing laws, and that this is a matter of private morality and not a matter of public law. I think this distinction was the one intended to be made by the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefen-baker) in his phrase that "freedom involves the right to be wrong but not to do wrong." This is a striking phrase, Mr. Speaker, but as it was pointed out by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis), it illustrates the exact opposite of what the right hon. member intended.
This bill does not attempt to outlaw hatred, which is wrong, but rather it intends to outlaw overt acts based upon hatred. It intends to outlaw wrongdoing. We have outlawed criminal assault, we have outlawed murder, we have outlawed criminal defamation of individuals, and we can and must outlaw genocide and defamation of groups in order to protect the human rights of minorities.
In my province of Ontario we have a long and proud record of protection of human rights dating from 1793 when the first Parlia-

April 9, 1970
Hate Propaganda
ment of Upper Canada passed an Act to Prevent the Further Introduction of Slaves and to Limit the Term of Enforced Servitude within the Province. Later provincial legislation proved very effective in preventing discrimination in housing and employment, despite the very same arguments that we have heard during the last few days that this type of discrimination based upon hate cannot be prevented by legislative action.
In fact, this legislation merely fills gaps in our criminal law. We have already criminal legislation to prevent breaches of the peace. This legislation makes it clear that this prohibition extends to breaches of the peace resulting from hate propaganda. We have already criminal legislation prohibiting criminal defamation of individuals. This bill simply makes it clear that this prohibition extends to criminal defamation of groups of individuals.
In Canada we have always been proud to be numbered among the strong supporters of the United Nations and the philosophy which it represents. The passing of this bill will help discharge our international commitments. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the United Nations declares as follows:
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act toward one another in a spirit of brotherhood.. .Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status-
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.
The United Nations Declaration on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination declares, in Article 8:
-all propaganda and organizations based on ideas or theories of the superiority of one race or group of persons of one colour or ethnic origin with a view to justifying or promoting racial discrimination in any form shall be severely condemned.
All incitement to or acts of violence, whether by individuals or organizations, against any race or group of persons of another colour or ethnic origin shall be considered an offence against society and punishable under law. In order to put into effect the purposes and principles of the present Declaration, all states shall take immediate and positive measures, including legislative and other measures to prosecute, and/or outlaw organizations which promote or incite to racial discrimination, or incite to or use violence for purposes of discrimination based on race, colour or ethnic origin.
[Mr. Wahn.l
The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination states, in Article 4:
States Parties condemn all propaganda and all organizations which are based on ideas or theories of superiority of one race or group of persons of one colour or ethnic origin, or which attempt to justify or promote racial hatred and discrimination in any form, and undertake to adopt immediate and positive measures designed to eradicate all incitement to, or acts of, such discrimination and, to this end, with due regard to the principles embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the rights expressly set forth in Article 4 of the Convention-
(a) Shall declare an offence punishable by law all dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority or hatred, incitement to racial discrimination, as well as all acts of violence or incitement to such acts against any race or group of persons of another colour or ethnic origin, and also the provision of any assistance to racist activities, including the financing thereof;
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, this bill is designed to carry out our obligations under these great international charters. It is not an assault on the freedom of speech. It is designed to protect human rights, and it deserves the strong support of the members of this House.


Mr. J. A. Jerome (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to participate in this debate, but I was in the House this afternoon and heard the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) speak. I was pleased, as always, to be in the House when he made his remarks, because as we all know he is a skilled orator and a brilliant debater with long experience in our courts and this chamber. For these reasons I looked forward, as always, to his performance in the House this afternoon.
He began with his flowing style and his appeal to sentiment and nostalgia, and it appeared he was in top form. But as his remarks unfolded I am sure every member of the House shared my disappointment. With nostalgia and sentiment he related so clearly and exhaustively his record as a defender of the liberties of individuals and our country and a fighter for civil liberties. As he further paraded before the House the adulation he received from the Jewish community in this country and others, it developed, in my opinion at least, that this was simply a fagade to conceal the fact that he had nothing positive to contribute to the merits, strengths or weaknesses of this legislation.
It became obvious very early in the right hon. gentleman's remarks that his principal concern is that the amendment proposed to
April 9, 1970

the Criminal Code offends the Bill of Rights which is now clearly established and which he regards as a personal possession. As if that were not bad enough, he then carried on what is obviously developing as a vendetta of the Conservative Party against Mr. Gagnon, director of Information Canada. Then he finally slid to the lowest depths of all, into a personal vendetta against the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) by making remarks indicating that the Prime Minister was attempting through this legislation to silence disagreement with him. This is not only insulting, it is irrelevant. His ultimate insult to the Prime Minister was his reference to remarks made about the Prime Minister during the election campaign of 1968.
The fact that these were the principal preoccupations of the right hon. gentleman might have escaped notice, and the fact that he really had nothing positive to contribute to the debate on the merits of this legislation may very well have gone unnoticed were it not for the fact that in my opinion a number of things he said this afternoon were patently absurd. I should like to refer to them briefly.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
First, he said that freedom of speech in this country should be restricted only in areas about which we are talking-libel, slander, blasphemy and sedition. It seems to me somewhat absurd at this stage in the development of our country to refrain from adding to that list prejudice, bigotry, hatred and incitement to genocide. The hon. gentleman was quick to praise the remarks of the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) as representing the position of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. If that is the position of the Conservative Party, how can one explain the reluctance to add to areas upon which we agree, such as the restriction on freedom of speech in respect of libel, slander, blasphemy and sedition, those areas referred to by the right hon. gentleman, namely, restriction on freedom of speech in respect of prejudice, bigotry, hatred and incitement to genocide?
I noticed in the right hon. gentleman's reference to the rights of Rubin and Stokely Carmichael and the incidents which have occurred recently in respect of those gentlemen, a very clear and categorical inconsistency. While he was castigating the government for bringing forward this legislation which is designed, in his words, to restrict and attempt to prohibit propaganda disseminated to create hatred and prejudice, he said that in the past
Hate Propaganda
he has advocated that persons such as Rubin and Stokely Carmichael should not have been permitted to enter this country in order to say the kind of things they wanted to say.
When this government said they should be let in and should say what they wanted to say, because this would be recognition of freedom of speech, he objected and said they should be prohibited. Now he says this legislation is offensive because it attempts to prohibit something like that, but not exactly the same type of thing, I hasten to add. That is a glaring inconsistency in the remarks of the right hon. gentleman for which I find no explanation.
What is worse is that he went on to say that the Criminal Code, if used in the manner proposed by the government in Bill C-3, would in fact be an attempt to silence people who have something to say. A first-year law student knows that a salient feature of our Criminal Code is that there is no prohibitory word or phrase in it. It does not say that a citizen of this country is prohibited from doing such and such-thou shalt not do this or that. Each and every section begins by saying that every one who does such and such is guilty of an offence. In other words, it lays down what we as a government say is conduct which acts against the way we want to run our country, against the order we expect in our society. This is so fundamental that there is no possibility that the right hon. gentleman fails to understand that basic principle of our criminal law.
We do not prohibit by our criminal law; people can do what they want to do. But if they do certain things they are on notice, because of the criminal law, that can expect to be prosecuted and punished if convicted. They are not prohibited from doing anything. I find this inconsistency inexplicable in a person experienced in criminal law when the right hon. gentleman says that the criminal law proposed in Bill C-3 is in any way prohibitory.
What really puzzles me about the position of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition is the amendment which would reduce the bill simply to a prohibition against incitement or the promotion of genocide. All through the remarks of the members of the opposition we have heard that Bill C-3 constitutes a great offence to the liberty of the individual because it would restrict freedom of speech. Right on the heels of that argument they say it is all right to have this law provided we are talking only about genocide. So in their

April 9, 1970
Hate Propaganda
opinion it is all right to limit freedom of speech if freedom of speech is misused in order to promote genocide.
Is it reprehensible to go on from there and say we will restrict freedom of speech if a person goes so far as to say he wants to kill all those against whom he is promoting hatred, but if he is only promoting hatred against them as a group we will not interfere with freedom of speech? The right hon. gentleman's remarks in this respect I find totally inconsistent and inexplicable. He quoted Daniel Webster's words, "I may disagree with what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it". Are we to understand that Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition is saying they are prepared to fight to the death for the right of people in this country to hate Jews, Catholics, Protestants or any other group of people? Is that their position?


An hon. Member:: That is their position.


James Alexander Jerome: It is proper to say that through enlightenment and education these prejudices will disappear or be overcome. If we had an enlightened and informed body politic it would not be necessary to enact laws restricting this kind of conduct. This ideal is something we have long since abandoned. If we had the ideal situation in the way people should respect personal property, we would not need laws against theft. If the human being was not filled with avarice and greed there would be no need for such laws. If some human beings were not basically dishonest, there would be no need for many of our laws. If some people were not depraved, there would be no needs for laws covering violence and sexual offences.
We have need for laws of this kind because we are an imperfect society. It is all very well to say that if we used the instruments of education, intelligence and enlightenment we would not need to restrict the freedom to say things which incite hatred and genocide. I agree that if we had perfect enlightenment we would not need laws of this kind. If we had perfect enlightenment we would not need any laws, because we would deal with one another in a completely honest and intelligent way. That is the ideal, the Utopia. It would be nice to have it, but we do not.
There is another point on which I take issue with my good friend, the hon. member for Coast Chilcotin who joined the chorus of critics on the other side. It has been said many times in this debate that Bill C-3 contains imperfections, difficulties and loopholes. In my opinion, the basic breakdown in that

argument is that it applies to every law on our statute books today. I am sure no one who has defended a case in the criminal courts has deluded himself, when he left the court room with an acquittal, that the acquittal was because of his advocacy.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
The right hon. gentleman referred to cases he had won. He does that, but I do not. I recognize that there are basic imperfections in every piece of criminal legislation on the statute books. I know that day in and day out there are murderers, rapists, bootleggers, prostitutes, and so on, who have been engaged in the kinds of activities that the legislation, by making them an offence, is designed to discourage. I know that some of them have been acquitted, and perhaps there are imperfections in the law that could be tightened up. The fact that some people who are probably guilty have been acquitted does not mean we should stop trying to use those laws, or that we should never pass a law or attempt to restrict any kind of activity unless we know that every time a charge is laid we will get a conviction.
That kind of spurious attitude toward criminal law would lead us to a set of regulations which would be so restrictive as to be inoperable or so completely comprehensive as to totally annihilate any concept of the liberty of the individual. Surely the criminal law is imperfect in many respects. There probably are defences about which no one in this House has thought, and there probably are difficulties and loopholes in Bill C-3. Perhaps some of them will be changed by amendment, and perhaps defences put foward will show us where they are.
No doubt there is restriction on freedom of speech, as has been said by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) more eloquently than I can say it, in the restriction on the privilege of leasing premises, of rendering service in a public restaurant or public institution, by landlords, and so on. We tell people in this country that freedom to use then-possessions and their position is restricted. We tell them they are restricted in freedom of speech and other freedoms that they enjoy, if by using those freedoms they promote and encourage hypocrisy, hatred, racial or religious prejudice, or genocide. There are in Bill C-3, restrictions on freedom of speech, there are imperfections in it and we may run into difficulty when we attempt to prosecute, but I for one am not about to preoccupy myself with these difficulties.
April 9, 1970

The hon. member for Coast-Chilcotin (Mr. St. Pierre) displayed the kind of spirit that has gained my admiration and the admiration of many hon. members with regard to the issue of Arctic sovereignty when he prodded the government-indeed he was the single, very strong spearhead that prodded this sometimes unwilling government-to take the position it has now taken. His attitude then was that he was not much concerned about the legal technicalities involved. He said that we have to move in this area because we must preserve our sovereignty. This member has taken part in this debate and I still admire his spirit, but I disagree with him in the way that he disagreed with previous speakers and with the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner). I disagree with him in the same spirit, because he is now saying that he agrees with the spirit of the legislation but because there are so many technical problems we should not go into them. If we had taken that stand with regard to Arctic sovereignty, we would not be where we are today-and I am proud of our position.
Imperfections or no imperfections, restrictions on freedom of speech or no restrictions, and putting aside all reference to other countries that have passed such legislation, even if Canada had been the only country to envisage such legislation or pass it, and if it is as imperfect and as restrictive of freedom of speech as has been suggested, I would still embrace it openly.
I am proud to live in the first country that has said to anybody who comes within our borders and does the things prohibited by Bill C-3, such as inciting hatred, racial or religious prejudice or genocide, that they cannot do that here and if they continue to do it we will take away their printing presses or the buildings from which they disseminate the literature and we will put them in jail for two or three years. The legislation is not stiff enough.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, for the last two or three days I have listened to the debate on Bill C-3. Various speakers have gone into some of the basic principles behind this bill, and my attitude has changed as different points of view have been presented with sincerity, seriousness and conviction. But I must say with the same sincerity, seriousness and conviction that if there is a reason for my stand against Bill C-3, it is due to some of the remarks-I
Hate Propaganda
emphasize it is only some-of the member who preceded me, the hon. member for Sudbury (Mr. Jerome).
My reaction to his remarks may have been different from that of other hon. members, but it seems to me the hon. member has a habit of following the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) and speaking about him whenever the latter is not in this chamber. One could almost compare him with a young child who had robbed the cookie jar and tried to get into the jam when momma or daddy left the kitchen. He always is critical when the man he is speaking about has left the chamber. He incited me, perhaps not to hatred but to a degree of emotion that is repugnant to me, basically on the grounds of generosity and good Irish feeling-and I do not like to be incited. He is not here now, so I will cease talking against him any longer; otherwise I will find myself hoist on the same petard.
It is an amazing coincidence that the hon. member for Sudbury always seems to follow the hon. member for Prince Albert, who is usually not in this House at this time of the night. That is understandable, because he spends many hours at night doing things on which the hon. member for Sudbury casts aspersions. The hon. member for Prince Albert deserves his rest at night and should not be exposed to the innuendos and insinuations advanced by the hon. member for Sudbury which incite me. This brings me to the heart of Bill C-3.
Be that as it may, the right hon. member for Prince Albert can defend himself. One of the reasons I am so honestly confused about Bill C-3 is that it was introduced on behalf of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) who gained one of his claims to fame by saying that we should not worry about conduct in the bedrooms of the nation. Yet this legislation involves the minds of men not only in bedrooms but everywhere.
I agree with the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) that we are not only speaking about the small sick or demented group. Many Canadians may by our standards be sick and demented, but this still has to do with the minds of men. I always listen to the hon. member for York South with a great deal of seriousness. I enjoy his contributions, which to my mind are among the most eloquent made in the House. However, I cannot speak on this subject with his conviction, nor do I pretend to do so.

April 9, 1970
Hate Propaganda
Sometimes I wonder if a white WASP, Anglo-Saxon Protestant should contribute anything to this debate, because we cannot speak on the very sincere contributions that have come from those who are not WASPs and who have suffered discrimination because they are members of a minority. Perhaps I have not been exposed to what other hon. members have been exposed to, but it is only a question of time. I come from southern Ireland, and it was only a short time ago that Mr. Kennedy, one of the presidents of the United States, said in that there were signs put up in Boston which read, "Irish and blacks don't apply". That was not long ago. Personally, I have been saved that embarrassment. I have debated with myself for a long time as to whether I could contribute anything to the debate, or should even try to do so, because regardless of how long this debate may last it concerns some of the fundamentals of the Judaeo-Christian philosophy.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
This is perhaps getting a little emotional, a little Irish and a little exaggerated, but basically the bill deals with the minds of men. It would be much easier for me to stand up in the House, like the hon. member for Sudbury, and say, "Of course I am against hate." I am against discrimination and I am against some of the things that he mentioned such as prejudice, bigotry and genocide. The one thing that he did hit upon that is in Bill C-3 is genocide, and there is not a person in this House who is not against genocide. But as far as I know, the words "prejudice" and "bigotry" are not mentioned in the bill.
There is something in the bill about inciting hatred with propaganda. I put it to hon. gentlemen that depending on where they sit, how they react, what the circumstances are, what the motivation and provocation may be, this becomes a pretty subjective thing. These are obviously things that should be involved. But I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that Jesus Christ could have been convicted, under some of the provisions of Bill C-3, by the Roman establishment of that day because he preached things which were anathema to and the antithesis of what the pagan Roman Empire believed, and he incited a breach of the peace.
I suggest to hon. members of this House that Martin Luther might have been convicted of inciting a breach of the peace under the terms of this bill when he posted his protest on the door in Wittenberg. Coming down to

the present day and age, I say that Martin Luther King could very well have been guilty of some of the offences set out in Bill C-3 because of some of the things he said against the WASP establishment in the America of which he spoke-and I am not saying that the Canadian part of North America is any better. The only quality in which we are better is that we do not have the numbers that are involved in that very serious problem south of the border. As Abraham Lincoln once said, the problem of race increases in direct ratio to the numbers involved. That is why we in Canada sometimes take a smug attitude about problems of race and religion, because we have perhaps a more homogeneous ethnic composition to our Canadian fabric than the country to our south. But that does not make us any better. It does not make us any more tolerant. It does not make us any more of the things that the hon. member for York South mentioned today.
Will Bill C-3 cure this? I agree with the hon. member for York South and others in one respect, and that is that I am not quibbling about the legal imperfections of the bill. However, looking back on history I can say, and I repeat, that under the terms of this bill Jesus Christ could have been convicted. Under the terms of this bill Martin Luther could have been convicted, and under the terms of this bill Martin Luther King could have been convicted.
I agree with the hon. member for Sudbury that there was an inconsistency in the Speech made today by the right hon. member for Prince Albert about Reubin and Stokely Carmichael. I suggest that if they came into Canada now, and if this bill becomes law, they would be convicted under it because what they preach and what they say certainly does not help calm the minds and spirits of men, be they black or white. They create dissension. They stimulate ill will. This may very well invoke a breach of the peace. But, Mr. Speaker, knowing the sad history of minorities, be they in the United States or any other country, do they not have a right to speak? Returning to Carmichael and Reubin, and to Rapp Brown wherever he may be tonight, I ask could any of those gentlemen come into Canada and speak, without being convicted under the terms of this bill?
I do not necessarily agree with what they say. What they say sometimes disturbs me immensely, but I agree that they have the right to say it. I cannot begin to believe the things they have gone through, the things
April 9, 1970

that provoke them to say the things that I find repugnant, but if I had gone through some of those things perhaps I would be saying the very things they want to say. My relatives were kicked out of southern Ireland because they did not believe in and conform to the establishment of that day. Thus, any exposure I have to this problem is only a vicarious one, and a pretty remote vicarious one at that, Mr. Speaker. I come back to this bill. To me it is repugnant because in so many places it shifts the onus of proof of innocence to a defendant. Some hon. members have suggested that there are protections and defences in the bill, but if a person is charged under it he has to prove that he comes within those defences.
However, the part of the bill that gives me more concern than any other has not been mentioned often in this House, and it is the reason I am speaking tonight. It is proposed new section 267C which outlines the procedures whereby a judge who is satisfied by a warrant, affidavit or information that there are reasonable grounds for believing that any member of this House, or anybody outside this House, has copies of material that he may want to distribute and which could be hate propaganda, can issue a warrant for seizure of that material, and this completely out of the blue so far as the person who has the stuff is concerned. Seven days later, under section 267C(2) the judge can then issue a summons for that person to appear, and he has to come into court and explain what the material is, and answer as to whether it is or is not something called hate propaganda.
Your Honour and some other hon. members of this House are experienced men at the bar. All I can say is that the two cases that I know involving Jehovah's Witnesses in Quebec, Roncarelli and Benoit, took 12 years from their beginning to the final judgment in the Supreme Court of Canada in order to resolve the legal problem. In his opening remarks for my party the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) had a great deal of ground to cover. I think he did it very well, but I do not think he dwelt on this point. Neither did I hear the hon. member for York South today mention proposed new section 267C. I listened to the hon. member from the time he started his speech until five o'clock, and I may have missed ten minutes of his speech after the recess since I did not return to the chamber until ten minutes past eight o'clock. Thus, I missed that part of his speech. With the conviction and the emotion that he can contrib-22218-15
Hate Propaganda
ute to debate, I would have liked to have heard him speak about 267C, which to me is the most repugnant part of the bill. But I did not hear him say a thing about it.
I did not hear the Minister of Justice say too much about 267C. I thought the right hon. member for Prince Albert was going to say something about 267C, which I repeat is the most repugnant part of the bill to me. Under it, if I have certain material in my house tonight-perhaps my children may have brought it in; perhaps they were given it on a street corner; I may be exaggerating but we are talking about basics and I think it is fair to test this by the extreme point because extreme thought all through history has produced change-I could be prosecuted.
Now I wish to refer to two great speeches made by the Minister of Justice last month. The first was the speech he made on March 4 when he talked about a manifesto for law reform, at the University of Windsor. The second was his speech of March 11 at the Caribbean conference, the law conference held in Kingston. I refer to that just in passing, Mr. Speaker, and I wish to give some quotations from his speeches.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
To me, that speech of the Minister of Justice was a tremendous reflection-I wondered as a Canadian why he would go down there and say what he did. He ended his speech-I will not read some portions of it because I do not think they bear on Bill C-3-with these remarks, to be found on page 17 of the press release:
-we are witnessing what has been described as a 'new search for human values and relationships -relationships between man, and between men and government-that have meaning in the technological and psychological context of our age.'
Then he quoted as follows:
'What this search and the accompanying changes demand is not a law and order that freezes man into predetermined patterns, but a law and order of change, of movement, of options. Yesterday's order, if it is unresponsive, becomes tomorrow's oppression.'
I believe he was quoting the words of Justice Cardozo. Perhaps he can tell me whom he was quoting.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Certainly he was not quoting Justice Carswell.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I believe it was Justice Cardozo, a man who is known for his views on civil liberties and for his interest in them.

April 9. 1970
Hate Propaganda
The minister ended his speech with these words:
We want a law in motion-a law that will never stand still again.
To me, the danger of Bill C-3 is that it will encourage that danger the minister mentioned when quoting from that eminent speech of Justice Cardozo. There is a potential danger that men's minds and opinions will be frozen. The minister is as good a student of history as I am and he knows that sometimes the crank or the oddball, the man who is sometimes ahead of his time and uses language that does not conform to that used by the establishment, has been a catalyst of change.
In this connection I could mention Jesus Christ, Martin Luther King and Joseph Howe, a man who looms large in the history of Nova Scotia and who put up a strong resistance against the ruling party of the day. If I had had time I would have come to the chamber prepared with his speeches. He said what he believed. People who say what they believe may run into difficulties with regard to Bill C-3. He helped to establish a free and independent press which we must have in a democracy if it is to be truly democratic. We must not merely mouth the word "democracy" in this chamber.
Those who have spoken for or against the bill have done so seriously and honestly. There are differences of opinion. But to me, this bill runs counter to the position the Minister of Justice has taken. Unless we tolerate these catalysts, be they Stokely Carmichael, Rapp Brown, Martin Luther or Jesus Christ, man's true spirit will not be emancipated. You cannot emancipate it by placing a yoke on the throat and by putting a smothering blanket over free expression.
I refer again to a speech of the Minister of Justice, as contained in a press report of March 11, 1970. On page 4 of his address entitled, "The Legal Profession Confronts the Future", the minister had this to say:
-law schools should preserve a balance between the life of the intellect and the life of the spirit.
Many things have been said by some here showing that they disagree with the concept which allows free expression of the spirit. I believe they have the right to express their views. But when the minister argues in this House that the saving grace of this legislation is that every prosecution needs the consent of the Attorney General, I say that argument is an exercise in sophistry. Where does the Attorney General come from? I am not reflecting

on any one Attorney General in this country. When one becomes involved with Attorneys General one immediately descends-I use the word "descends" advisedly-from the realm of law to the realm of politics. We are all political animals in this chamber and do not take second place to anybody. We have ten Attorneys General at least in this country, and you could very well have ten different interpretations of what is hate propaganda or what constitutes an incitement under the terms of this bill.
The debate that has gone on for the last two or three days has interested me. Some people have said, "Oh, well, in Quebec in the old days Duplessis was wrong; he was corrupt." When Duplessis was in power in Quebec there was a little group that called a spade a spade and challenged him. They are now sitting on the government benches and in other parts of the House. They may pride themselves because of the political battles they fought there, but it was the Jehovah's Witnesses who first protested against some of the power being usurped there.
In retrospect, it is easy to say what was right or wrong. I am not saying Duplessis was bad for Quebec; I am not vindicating Mr. Duplessis. I am merely stating a proposition. Under Bill C-3 I do not think the Padlock Law could have been changed, because those proposing the change could have been jailed. I refer again to the minister's speech. It had spirit, Mr. Speaker. He said, again, on page 4:
If we are to be truly Intellectual we must take into account all relevant factors. We may often be thinking about the wrong things and may be devising wrong solutions to false problems.
At page 8 of his speech, in talking about the future of the legal profession, he said that the legal profession is concerned with the over-all restructuring of society. He also said:
Law, which touches the nerve centres of man and society, and which touches us in a very prescriptive way, can be a profession in the vanguard of reform.
He also said this on that page:
Indeed, law is not the enemy of revolution but can make possible revolution through law.
I suggest, because of the restrictive nature of Bill C-3, that if there is a spirit of change which sometimes even starts in the recesses of sick minds, minds which are perverted and prejudiced, it will not kindle any response in the hearts of men. It does not matter whether the spirit begins with a Rapp Brown, a Stokely Carmichael or a Martin Luther King. Does
April 9. 1970

anybody in the House think that the Attorneys General of Louisiana and Georgia would interpret a bill like C-3 in the same way as the Attorney General of Massachusetts, whoever he may be, Pennsylvania or California?
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
Bill C-3 has been advanced by a certain minority to help their conscience and to help their mainstream in a life to which I will never be exposed and therefore cannot fully appreciate. I say it is a trap for that minority. The hon. member for York South spoke about Europe. He knows as well as I that some churches in Europe have been preaching antiSemitism for 1,500 years. That did not come into effect overnight. The master race philosophy was in vogue for over 100 years before Hitler. Perhaps because of this background, preaching in a public place by members of churches against their fellowman, which is so repugnant to those on this North American continent, was outlawed. I can understand this in certain countries of Europe, but it is not the situation in Canada.
I quote again from the statement of the Minister of Justice:
Law is not just an agency of social control; it articulates the values by which men seek to live. It is not just a system of enforcement techniques, but a guarantee of fundamental rights.
At page 9 the minister said:
The problem is, however, that if this conflict between authority and freedom is endemic to all societies, it is particularly so, and particularly dangerous, in societies reaching and moving beyond the development take-off point. For developing nations are vulnerable to the search for stability and the temptation of economic advances at the price of freedom. The rule of law in a free society can be precarious for a new nation-
At page 10 the minister said:
The criminal law is the paradigm case of the controlled use of power in society. As Professor Herbert Packer of Stanford University has pointed out, there are limits to the use of the criminal sanction. This is particularly relevant for new nations which must guard against the invocation of the criminal sanction for political objectives rather than as a "neutral" instrument of crime control and due process. We have continually to humanize the use of the criminal sanction.
That, Mr. Speaker, is one of the most confusing parts of this whole matter. Bill C-3 has laudable social objectives, but it is invoking the criminal law to implement them. When the Minister of Justice introduced this bill in this House, he did no say there were limits to the use of the criminal sanction. I believed his speech on March 11. I believe it today. I 2221&-15J
Hate Propaganda
believe it conforms to that degree of democracy we have reached in this country, with all its imperfections. While I think the objectives of Bill C-3 are laudable, I find repugnant the use of the criminal sanction to try and implement them because they involve so many cross-currents of human philosophy, conduct and behaviour. The Minister of Justice agreed to that very principle.
If there is doubt in anyone's mind about the philosophy, I refer them to section 267C, which allows a Judge to authorize someone, on the information of anybody, to seize literature in a person's house about which someone has sworn an affidavit saying that it is hate literature. Within seven days that person will be told to appear to answer the charge in court. If there is anything more repugnant to the common law, the criminal law of Canada or the criminal law of the British jurisprudence system, I would like to know what it is. I heard very little explanation from the Minister of Justice with regard to section 267C, which is the reason I feel motivated to participate in this debate.
This section has horrendous implications. What would happen if a man like Hitler used section 267C and had one of his "brown-shirts" swear out an affidavit that the Minister of Justice had something in his house, not Pogo or Mickey Mouse but something that could be termed hate literature? The words in the section are "hate propaganda". While the minister is in the House talking about justice, there could be a knock at his front door while his wife is in the kitchen and a man could walk in and seize the literature. Seven days later the minister would receive a summons to appear in court to justify and defend his having hate propaganda in his home. Even though this literature might have been brought home by the children, he would have to defend himself.
In a case involving two eminent Jehovah's Witnesses it took 12 years to resolve who was right and who was wrong. While there is no one in this House who believes any person will go to the extreme I have illustrated tonight, the power is there. I ask, why is it there? It is an affront to the parliamentary process and to the judicial process.
I do not intend to deal this evening with the fact that the onus is shifted to the accused to come within the scope of the four defences outlined in the bill. That point has already been well covered. However, section 267C has

April 9, 1970
Hate Propaganda
hardly been mentioned. As a lawyer, parliamentarian and Canadian I have publications in my house that may or may not conform to what someone may think is correct. Some day I could be exposed because of this. As we have heard, there are many great works of the masters that might be in breach of this section covering hate propaganda. These could perhaps include the "Merchant of Venice" or other Shakesperean tales. Enough said about that.
Section 267C is the most iniquitous part of this bill. I would like the Minister of Justice, the man who speaks for the just society or any member opposite to stand in this House and try to justify the power of a judge to authorize someone to come into my home on the basis of an affidavit of some kook, oddball, hippie or perverted, sick character that I have hate literature there.
In some of the great speeches made in this House on behalf of the minority by hon. members who were serious and sincere about this bill they dealt with freedom of expression and freedom of speech that was not available in Europe. How did Hitler prostitute the minds of men and do what he did in infamy? It was because there was not free speech. The people who spoke out were carted away. I do not wish to see any person given the unqualified right to come into my house on the basis of an information and, before I am convicted, seize property in my home.
Some of the hideous things that happened in Europe occurred because of lack of freedom of speech. I say this is a trap for those who have spoken so eloquently in support of this bill in order to help protect the minorities who have suffered so grievously. I have already stated that the consent of the Attorney General is of no help because he is a political creature. He has been appointed by the majority and represents the establishment. Is he going to help the minority? The power of consent assigned to the Attorney General becomes, in effect, almost a power of veto. In any event there are ten Attorneys General, each of whom will exercise discretion according to his own standards, standards which are bound to vary widely.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)


An hon. Member:: Some bureaucrat will do it for him.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Yes, it could be a bureaucrat, as my hon. friend suggests. It could be the youngest member of the staff, someone

straight out of law school. The assumption is that the minority will benefit, but this will not turn out to be the case. We are on a collision course between common sense and the law. The Minister of Justice suggests, speaking with sincerity and in tones of conviction, that there is an educational factor involved here which increases the value of the bill. I ask him this question: Since when has the Criminal Code become a schoolbook from which we learn the principles of decency and fairness to all mankind? If we have reached this stage in our society, we are a lot sicker than I thought we were. To me, the Criminal Code provides sanctions in case of offences against individuals and property. I do not believe it should be a schoolbook for those needing primary courses in conduct. We are supposed to learn these things in other ways.
I realize my time is limited, Mr. Speaker, and I should like to conclude by making one or two quotations which illustrate the concern felt in this issue by hon. members, especially on this side of the House. In the words of Justice Holmes, if there was a clear and present danger presented by the ills which this bill is supposed to cure, there might be justification for approving the proposals put forward by the government. I do not think there is such a danger. The bill is negative in quality. It will have a chilling effect not only on the occasional oddball who may be prosecuted but on many other persons who may from now on be afraid to speak out lest they become liable to the penalties set out.
I conclude by quoting the words of Mr. Justice Jackson in the case of American Communications Association v. Dodds, 339 U.S., 382, as recorded at page 442. Justice Jackson said, among other things:
The danger that citizens will think wrongly is serious, hut less serious than the danger of atrophy through not thinking-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired. He can continue only with the unanimous consent of the House.


An hon. Member:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


An hon. Member:: No.
Another hon. Member:	That was Mr. Mahoney.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I was about to finish a quotation.
April 9, 1970	COMMONS


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member might be allowed to finish the quotation he started.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Agreed.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I thank the House for its qualified approval. It is only because I was in the middle of my concluding quotation that the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Mahoney), who was not even listening-I do not blame him for that-said no. Mr. Justice Jackson, among other things, said:
It is not the function of the government to keep the citizens from falling into error. It is the function of the citizens to keep the government from falling into error.
Every time the House passes a negative, repressive piece of legislation which restricts the full expression of opinion, even though the opinions expressed may be odious, we fall into error and a lever is removed by means of which bad government could be corrected.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Perhaps I can make one point before Your Honour sees it is ten o'clock. I would say on behalf of my hon. friends that the vote this afternoon on the amendment moved by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Wool-liams) is an accurate reflection of our attitude regarding the disposition of this measure as a whole. I say this in order that our views may be identified on such an important issue.
I do not intend, when the debate is resumed, to go over the ground I covered during an earlier intervention, but I should like to make three short points. I am afraid I cannot make
DEBATES	5709
Business of the House
them in 30 seconds, so I trust hon. members will accord me their indulgence if I ask you to say, Mr. Speaker, that it is ten o'clock.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Donald Stovel Macdonald: Before the House rises, Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might be permitted to make a statement as to the business of the House for the next few days.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gerald William Baldwin: Why didn't you do it earlier?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Because your hon. friends refused me permission to do so earlier. Tomorrow, as hon. members know, will be an allotted today, the subject matter being chosen by the New Democratic Party. On Monday we would call as the first item third reading of Bill C-3 currently under consideration, and would hope to follow shortly thereafter with second reading of the Canada grain bill. It is anticipated this will be a popular subject matter and we therefore expect to spend some part of Tuesday on its discussion. On Wednesday the budget debate will be continued for the fifth appointed day, and on Thursday we shall consider Government Order No. 87, Bill C-202 in connection with measures against pollution in the Arctic seas.
At 10 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Friday, April 10, 1970