1970-04-06

HOUSE OF COMMONS DEBATES


[Stage Direction]
Queen's Printer for Canada, Ottawa, 1970
[Stage Direction]
Monday, April 6, 1970


Mr. Bernard Dumont (Frontenac):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I should like to inform the House that, as of this day, I shall no longer represent the constituency of Frontenac. I am resigning with the satisfaction of having discharged my responsibilities. Other duties will enable me to return to Ottawa in order to negotiate the rights of Quebec, after April 29.
I urge the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to take the advice of the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) and get married so as to be able to grasp the human problems facing all Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, to you and to all my colleagues I say that the experience gained in this House is highly valuable. I thank you all for your understanding, but we will surely meet again.
Som hon. Members: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member should perhaps indicate to the Chair whether his resignation comes into force immediately or whether he intends to tell us when he will leave the House?


Bernard Dumont: It will take effect this very day, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Frontenac having notified us of his intention to resign his seat, it is my duty to inform the House that when the Clerk has entered such notice on the journals of the House, in accordance with the provisions of section 6, chapter 143 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1952, namely under the House of Commons Act, I shall forthwith address my warrant to the Chief Electoral Officer, for the issue of a writ for the election of a new member for the said federal constituency.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I thought it might be of some assistance to the House if I indicated the plan for House business for this week commencing April 6.
As hon. members know, the first item for today will be government order No. 5, the report stage of Bill C-3, the hate literature bill, to be followed by third reading in due course. The second item is government order No. 15, the bill with regard to the International Development Research Centre; we would expect that would be called tomorrow. The remaining two days of the budget debate, that is, the fifth and sixth appointed days, would be called for Wednesday and Thursday of this week. Friday will be the remaining allotted day from the last period which, pursuant to the order made by the House, will be allotted to the New Democratic Party.
I hope to have a meeting with the House Leaders later today or tomorrow to discuss the general allocation of business for this part of the session.



CRIMINAL CODE


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the government has decided today to refer the important question of whether the breathalyzer provisions of the Criminal Code were validly proclaimed on December 1 last to the Supreme Court of Canada for hearing and consideration pursuant to section 55 of the Supreme Court Act. This step is being taken because of the recent judgment of the Supreme Court of British Columbia in the case of Regina v. Story which held that these provisions had not been properly proclaimed.
The breathalyzer provisions contained in recent Criminal Code amendments were

Criminal Code
designed to attack the ever-growing problem of death and injury on the highways resulting from persons driving motor vehicles after having consumed excessive amounts of alcohol. While the legislation included provisions dealing with approved containers that might be used as a check on police equipment and analysis, it was made clear by the government when the legislation was before the House of Commons that approved containers had not yet been perfected and that they were not yet available for use. It was also made clear that the breathalyzer provisions would be brought into force notwithstanding the unavailability of approved containers. Indeed, the provision of the law dealing with approved containers was included as part of the legislation for the sole purpose of avoiding the delay that would result if additional legislation were required to make approved containers, once perfected, available to the public as an additional possible defence.
Because of the importance of the new breathalyzer laws to all Canadians and the desirability of eliminating confusion in the public mind that will result if these laws are not enforced with reasonable uniformity throughout the country, and because of the conflict of judicial opinion that has recently developed as to whether they are now properly in force, I consider it desirable to have this issue determined definitively as quickly as possible.
By proceeding by way of a direct reference to the Supreme Court of Canada rather than by the ordinary appeal route, I feel that a good deal of time will be saved in clarifying the legal status of the breathalyzer provisions as proclaimed last December. In addition, a substantial amount of court time throughout the country will not have to be taken up with needless argument and this in turn should result in a significant saving of expense to persons charged under the breathalyzer provisions of the Code. The required Order in Council under section 55 of the Supreme Court Act will be filed with the Supreme Court of Canada within the next few days.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I do not like to start off in a critical fashion just after the Easter recess but I am afraid I must. At five minutes before two o'clock today we received a document called a press release. On a matter as serious as this I should have thought the Minister of Justice would hand to the official opposition a copy of the statement he should have made

on motions before issuing a press release, and flowing from that statement there could well have been a press report.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, it is high time that Parliament was taken into the confidence of this government, whose arrogance is beyond understanding.
I should like to refer to an interesting point brought to my attention by the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants who first brought this whole matter to the attention of Parliament. He pointed out that this proclamation was wrong and, as the minister knows, he is one of the leading members of the House on the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. I should like to quote from page 476 of Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence No. 11 of that committee to show that the minister was well aware of the law or appeared to be well aware of it, unless he received some bad advice along the way. The relevant date is Tuesday, March 18, 1969. As I say, at page 476 of that report the minister is reported as having said:
The Attorney General of Canada will have to approve some container as suitable. We do not have a suitable container yet developed. What happened of course was that testimony was given to this committee last year or the year before that* there was a suitable container which has turned out to be inaccurate evidence. That is the problem that Mr. Hogarth was talking about and that is why we have to delay the proclamation.
In other words, when the minister was before the committee he knew that he would have to make the proclamation with respect to the law on the breathalyzer test. He also knew that he had to specify in that proclamation the kind of container and the kind of scientific equipment that was necessary. During the Easter holidays, following the decision of Judge Craig Munroe, the minister said, "We are going to appeal." I hope, now that he has had a change of heart and is going to refer the matter to the Supreme Court of Canada, that he will remember that we are dealing here with something involving the rights of citizens.
Parliament passes the laws, though it is true they flow from the government. But I submit that even the present executive, including the Minister of Justice and the present Prime Minister, must obey Parliament and cannot by proclamation go beyond the powers this institution has given it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The press release from the office of the Minister of Justice reads in part as follows:
Mr. Turner pointed out that the breathalyzer provisions contained in recent Criminal Code amendments were designed to attack the evergrowing problem of death and injury on the highways resulting from persons driving motor vehicles after having consumed excessive amounts of alcohol.
That may be true. Parliament passed the act but the executive went far beyond it. This action is a typical example of rule by cabinet and not by Parliament. It is a typical example of the bind the government will get itself into in future if it continues to follow this course. The people of Canada still trust Parliament, even if the government does not.
[Editor's Note: At this point a voice from the gallery shouted, "I don't."]


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Why don't you resign your seat? You are drawing good pay.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: That was from the gallery.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: He is getting good pay, too.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I hope the Minister of Justice will take into consideration the cost to the citizen of this appeal. I like the procedure being followed in this instance but I submit that my criticism has been well-founded.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, there is one aspect of the minister's statement that I would commend, and only one. If the deed must be done, it is well that it be done quickly. If this matter is to go to the courts then I submit it is proper that it should go to the Supreme Court of Canada as quickly as possible in order to avoid confusion in the courts and to avoid confusing the people of Canada on this important subject.
But, Mr. Speaker, there is a far more serious aspect of this matter than the mere legal aspect. I am not, of course, going to discuss the legal aspects since the matter is before the courts, but I want to refer to the question of the rights of Parliament. I suggest that whatever the law is and whatever the Supreme Court of Canada may say, it is a most outrageous and dangerous precedent that says that the criminal law of this country should not be made here, in Parliament, by the peoples' elected representatives but by the
Criminal Code
cabinet of the day. This is a very dangerous precedent and one that should be avoided.
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)
What is the situation? Parliament designed this legislation. I will not comment on it. I think it was excellent in purpose and as far as I am concerned I approved of it. But a safeguard for the subject was tied right into the legislation. What happened? This part of it, taken right out of context, is not proclaimed. This is a form of selective delegation which warps the meaning and intent of Parliament. This is not a minor matter. It is not taking one section, putting it into effect today and taking another section and putting it into effect tomorrow. That might be perfectly all right. This is removing the integral part of the section, a safeguard given to the subject in a matter of penal law, and saying, we, the cabinet, are going to pass this law in a different form from that approved by Parliament.
The intentions may have been excellent. Perhaps the containers are not yet available or something of the sort. If that is so, the government should have either proclaimed the whole thing or come back to Parliament and said that they could not do this and wanted to change the law. Perhaps they could have been able to do that.
I say that the greatest safeguard that exists to the liberty of the subject is that the criminal and penal laws of this country in serious matters of this sort which affect the liberty of the subject should be made by Parliament and not by the cabinet of the day. For this reason, whatever the legal consequences, I repeat that it is a dangerous and outrageous precedent that we have before us today.


Mr. Real Caoueite (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I think the minister's statement could start an important debate among lawyers. I am not a lawyer but I feel that the question is urgent and important since a decision of the Supreme Court of British Columbia has made it possible to question the validity of the act providing for the use of the breathalizer. In my opinion, the minister was absolutely justified in making a statement today and to act as swiftly as possible, so that we know exactly what the situation is regarding this important matter.
I agree entirely with the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) who says that an amendment to the Criminal Code must first of all be introduced in the House of Commons.


Dairy Policy
However, the procedure, if followed, would take four, five or even six months before the law is passed. However, under present circumstances, I believe it is urgent that this question be decided upon as soon as possible and that the government take its responsibilities in this field.
It is absolutely inconceivable and unacceptable that the use of the breathalyzer be legal in one province and illegal in another. It is important to standardize the law throughout Canada and it is for that reason that we approve the announcement made in the House today by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner).



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Roch La Salle (Jolietle):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I request the unanimous consent of the House to present a motion the necessity and the urgency of which are explained by what follows.
On March 23 last, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) announced his dairy policy. As he was not in the House on March 24 and 25, it was impossible for us to obtain any further details about some very important points of this policy.
The new estimates run to $115 million compared to $125 million last year. Furthermore, the government has announced a fine of $1.25 per cwt. for all milk produced in excess of the allotted quotas, thus creating a drastic situation for milk producers in general and those from Quebec in particular.
Actually, Quebec produces 75 per cent of Canada's "above quota" milk. The government's policy is therefore ruthlessly aimed at producers in Quebec, primarily a dairy province.
What does the government intend to offer to the dairy producers? Retraining courses or subsidies for pilot projects on different branches of Quebec's agricultural industry? Thousands of producers are now threatened and may end up dependent on the government since the present subsidies are needed even by the most efficient producers.
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Huron (Mr. McKinley) that an emergency debate take place on the government's dairy policy which is now affecting thousands of dairy producers and places them in danger of bankruptcy.


Mr. Speaker:: I could not see in the remarks of the hon. member a motion which might be put before the House. However I do not wish to make difficulties. In my opinion it is simpler to ask for the unanimous consent of the House to hold a debate as proposed by the member for Joliette.

Is there unanimous consent under the terms of Standing Order 43?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: As there is no unanimous consent, the hon. member's motion cannot be put at this time.
[DOT] (2:30 p.m.)



HOUSING


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I rise to seek leave to make a motion with the unanimous consent of the House under the provisions of Standing Order 43. My reasons for doing so will be apparent from a study of the most recent release of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation on the housing situation throughout Canada in the month of February.
This release shows that the grave and growing housing crisis is getting worse and that it is not being dealt with. It reveals that during February housing starts for all Canada were at the rate of 158,000 a year. The Economic Council of Canada has made it clear that if the need is to be met there must be at least
215,000	starts. In urban centres whose population exceeds 10,000, starts for February were down 46 per cent compared with the number a year ago. On the other hand, the rate of interest charged by the corporation has risen from 10.1 per cent to 10.25 per cent.
Shelter and housing are absolutely essential, Mr. Speaker, but the need is not being met. I therefore move, seconded by my hon. friend from Broadview:
That the matter of the urgent housing crisis revealed by the recently released report of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the continuing decline in housing starts amounting, in centres of 10,000 and more, to a drop in February of 46 per cent below the rate in the previous year, be referred to the committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.


In my view this is a matter of such urgency that I confidently ask the unanimous support of the House to have it sent to the committee.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the terms of the motion suggested by the hon. member for Greenwood. The motion cannot be put unless there is unanimous consent. The Chair has to inquire whether there is such consent.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: In the absence of unanimous consent the hon. member's motion cannot be put at this time.



QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER

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

Mr. Burton: 1.	On what date was agreement reached for the sale of flour equivalent to about eight million bushels under the agreement between the Canadian Wheat Board and V/O Exportkhleb and referred to by the Minister without Portfolio (Saskatoon-Humboldt) in his statement to the House of Commons, December 15?
2.	On what date or dates was this shipment of flour made?
3.	What was the destination of this flour shipment?
4.	Was payment for this flour made by cash settlement or under credit arrangements and, if so, what was the nature of the credit arrangements?
5.	What was the approximate value of the flour shipment?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister without Portfolio):: 1. This sale of flour was made by private flour milling firms in March 1969 in accordance with a general sales contact between the Canadian Wheat Board and V/O Exportkhleb. The flour trade's operations are of a commercial nature and it is not the policy of the Government to reveal the precise date or price of flour sales contracts.
2.	The flour was shipped in the period from April, 1969 to December, 1969.
3.	The flour was shipped to Cuba.
4.	Payment was on a cash basis.
5.	The flour shipped under this contract was valued at approximately $19 million.
Questions


MANAGERIAL PERSONNEL, INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK
Mr. Fortin: 1.	How many of the top management of the Industrial Development Bank are (a) Englishspeaking (b) French-speaking (c) bilingual?
2.	What is the language policy of the IDB?
3.	What is the interest yield on the capital invested by the IDB for each of the past five years?
4.	(a) Who is the auditor for the IDB (b) how much is he paid (c) is it intended that the Auditor General of Canada be appointed as auditor for the IDB?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: 1
and 2. It has not been the practice nor is it considered appropriate to answer questions regarding the internal administration of the Industrial Development Bank.
3.	Rate of return on Capital plus Reserve Fund, Year ended September 30, 1965, 1.73 per cent; 1966, 0.92 per cent; 1967, 1.03 per cent; 1968, 1.18 per cent; 1969, 0.54 per cent.
4.	(a) J. Rene de Cotret, C.A. of Rene de Cotret & Cie; T. C. Kinnear, F.C.A. of Price Waterhouse & Co. (b) $9,500 each, (c) No.


PUBLIC HOUSING RENTAL FORMULA, MULGRAVE PARK, HALIFAX
Mr. McCleave: 1.	What is the formula used to set rents for public housing in the Federal-Provincial-Municipal partnership at Mulgrave Park, Halifax?
2.	Is this formula standard with formulae in other provinces and, if not, what are the variations?
3.	(a) What is the rent formula used at Mulgrave Park when tenants supplement their regular incomes with part-time work (b) is this formula in general use elsewhere and, if not, what exceptions are there?
4.	Has consideration been given to waiving the rental exaction on overtime earnings when such have been earned beyond a 2,000 hour working period in any one year?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister without Portfolio):: 1. Rental rates in the Federal-Provincial-Municipal project at Mulgrave Park, Halifax, are set in accordance with the rent-to-income scale.
2.	The rent-to-income scale used in the Mulgrave Park project is the standard scale used by all provinces.
3.	(a) Earnings from the part-time work of a tenant in the Mulgrave Park project are added to the regular income of the tenant and the rentals are established, in accordance with the rent-to-income scale, on the combined earnings; (b) The same procedure for parttime earnings is applicable to all other projects.


Questions
4.	The rent-to-income scale is currently under review and the views of each province, including recommendations regarding parttime earnings, are being considered.


GRAIN ELEVATORS NOT OPERATED ON SCHEDULED BASIS BY FULL-TIME AGENTS
Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	Are there any elevators in Western Canada presently licensed to store and handle grain which are not operated on a scheduled basis by a lulltime agent and, if so, how many are there in the Provinces of (a) Alberta (b) Saskatchewan (c) Manitoba?
2.	What grain companies own these respective facilities and where are they located?
3.	What is the total storage capacity in each case?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: 1.	The number of elevators not operated on a scheduled basis by an agent who devotes his full-time to elevator operations is (a) 71 in Alberta (b) 99 in Saskatchewan and (c) 13 in Manitoba.
2.	These are owned by the following companies: Alberta Wheat Pool; Federal Grain Limited; National Grain (1968) Limited; N. M. Paterson & Sons Limited; Parrish & Heim-becker Limited; Pioneer Grain Company Limited; Saskatchewan Wheat Pool; Manitoba Pool Elevators and United Grain Growers Limited.
They are located at the following points:
(a)	Alberta: Fitzallen, Shonts, Staplehurst, Veldt, Watts, Taylor Siding, Norma, Wood-house, Warwick, Viewpoints, Slawa, Rusylvia, Rosyth, Ohaton, Norfolk, Nacmine, Monarch, Metiskow, Lousana, Looma, Kingman, Hamlet, Gayford, Gatine, Greencourt, Gartly, Entice, Equity, Egremont, Edwand, Diamond City, Dorenlee, Countess, Carvel, Bradshaw, Bonar, Blue Ridge, Beaver River, Ankerton, Roma, Poe, Keoma, Granum, Beaverhill, Dunphy, Nestow, Oberlin, Twining, Musidora, Lindbergh, Lamerton, Jefferson, Heisler, Hazeldine, Haight, Forshee, Coronado, Connemara and Academy;
(b)	Saskatchewan: Gilroy, Blooming, Beav-erdale, Worcester, Warman, Wallisville, Viola, Verendrye, Verulam, Vance, Uren, Trewdale, Tornea, Thaxted, Swinburne, Secretan, Swanson, Surbiton, Strong, Strehlow, Royer, Romance, Roche Percee, Ridpath, Rak, Penkill, Ambassador, Abbott, Archive, Arma, Ava, Bear Creek, Belbutte, Betalock, Blewett, Brooking, Brough, Buttress, Cana, Chambers, Cheviot, Chipperfield, Colmer, Crutwell, Cuth-bert, Dacer, Deer Creek, Expanse, Eyre, Forslund, Grainland, Greene, Gunnworth,

Hassan, Hawoods, Juniata, Lille, Lindguist, Northminster, Pattee, Pym, Sidmar, Gascoigne, Ranger, Bolney, Mennon, Neely, Plassey, Redberry, Red Pheasant, St. Alphege, Service, Tatsfield, Vesper, Makwa, Kinley, Ketchen, Irvington, Frys, Duperow, Donegal, Cote, Clavet, Chrysler, Cater, Canuck, Breeze, Barvas and Axford;
(c)	Manitoba: Stockton, Purves, Mollard, Largs, Kemnay, Cameron, Garland, Shevlin, Madill, Rufford, Christie and Carroll.
3.	The total storage capacity is (a) Alberta,
2,877,000	bushels; (b) Saskatchewan, 3,359,000 bushels and (c) Manitoba, 553,000 bushels.


INCENTIVE GRANT TO YELLOWSTONE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED
Mr. Burton: 1.	Has the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, under the Regional Incentives Act, authorized or provided for an incentive grant to "Yellowstone Development Corporation Ltd." and, if so, what is the amount of the grant?
2.	What is the total estimated cost of the project for which the grant was provided and what is the nature of the project and its location?
3.	Who are the directors and executive officers of "Yellowstone Development Corporation Ltd." and what is the address of each?
4.	To what extent is this company non-resident or foreign-owned or controlled?
5.	What is the name and country of the known, non-resident ownership in this company?


Mr. Yves Forest (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: I am informed by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and the Dominion Bureau of Statistics as follows: 1 and 2. This information was contained in the monthly report, tabled in Parliament on the operation of the Regional Development Act.
3.	As of January 31, 1969, the directors and executive officers of Yellowstone Development Corporation Limited are: Mr. G. B. Morgan, President, 208 Allard Street, Winnipeg 20, Manitoba; Mrs. Athalie Morgan, Secretary-Treasurer, 208 Allard Street, Winnipeg 20, Manitoba; Mr. G. Pollock, Vice-President, 204 Portage Avenue, Winnipeg, Manitoba.
4.	None.
5.	None.


STAFF OF PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARIES
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 1,052
Mr. Coates:: Do any of the Parliamentary Secretaries to Cabinet Ministers have staff in excess of a personal secretary and, if so (a) what are the names of-the Parliamentary Secretaries (b) what are the


names of the person or persons on staff (c) what is the annual salary of the person or persons on staff?
(a)
Mr. Stanley Haidasz Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of National Health and Welfare
Mr. Martin O'Connell,
Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Regional Economic Expansion
Mr. Gerard Loiselle,
Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport


SUGGESTED CHANGES IN CANADA PENSION PLAN AND INCOME TAX
Mr. Mather: 1.	Is consideration being given to the request of the Canadian Federation of Business & Professional Women's clubs that alleged discrimination against Canada Pension Plan contributors who die without leaving a spouse should be removed by providing a more equitable return of contributions to the deceased contributor's dependents or estate?
2.	Is consideration being given for tax exemption for working women who must employ the services of others to maintain a home for themselves and their dependents?


Yves Forest: I am informed by the Department of National Health and Welfare and the Department of Finance as follows: 1. The Minister of National Health and Welfare is studying the brief submitted by the Canadian Federation of Business and Professional Women's clubs containing a resolution concerning survivorship pensions under the Canada Pension Plan as a part of the review of social security programs.
3.	Kates, Peat, Marwick & Company Kates, Peat, Marwick & Company
Dr. Stanley J. Shapiro Hickling-Johnston Ltd.
Samson Belair Riddell Stead Inc. Samson Belair Riddell Stead Inc.
Price Waterhouse Associates Price Waterhouse Associates Price Waterhouse Associates
Questions	
Hon. Donald S. Macdonald	(President of
the Privy Council):	
(b)	(c)
Mrs. Lois Byrnes	$6,918
Mrs. G. Fulford	6,294
Miss C. H. Loiseau	5,632
2.	The Government proposes in paragraphs 2.7 and 2.8 of the White Paper on tax reform that a parent be allowed to deduct expenses incurred for child care up to a maximum of $500 per child and not exceeding $2,000 per family.


POST OFFICE PERSONNEL
Mr. Fortin: 1.	How many persons in the Post Office Department earn more than $17,000.00?
2.	Of this number, how many have (a) English (b) French as their mother tongue and, how many are bilingual?
3.	What amount was paid in fees to each of the consultants mentioned in the "Blueprint for Change, Canada Post Office" of November 1969?


Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Postmaster General and Minister of Communications):: 1. 68, as
of February 1970.
2.	(a) 54; (b) 14; (c) 19; all as of February 1970.

25,000.00	$283,626.70
43,938.25
81,765.37
101,480.00
63,432.50	164,912.50
24,000.00
50,497.92
35,051.25	109,549.17
D.C.F. Systems Ltd. 22218-21
23,096.49


Questions


FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION INMATES
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	How many inmates are there in federal correctional institutions at the present time?
2.	How many inmates are there in each of the institutions under maximum security, medium security, minimum security?
3.	How many paroles were granted to the inmates of federal correctional institutions for each of the past three years and of these, how many were maximum parolees, medium parolees, minimum parolees?
4.	How many inmates are there in federal correctional institutions serving sentences after being sentenced to preventive detention and in which institutions are these people detained?
5.	In each of the past three years, how many inmates serving sentences under preventive detention were paroled?
6.	In the past three years, for all those inmates in Canadian institutions paroled, what was the average time served?


Hon. G. J. Mcllraiih (Solicitor General):: 1.
7,381 (as of March 10, 1970).
2.	Maximum Security
Dorchester Penitentiary	330
St. Vincent de Paul Penitentiary	548
Archambault Institution	184
Special Correctional Unit	86
Kingston Penitentiary	724
Prison for Women	58
Manitoba Penitentiary	377
Saskatchewan Penitentiary	500
British Columbia Penitentiary	517
3,324
Medium Security
Springhill Institution	212
St. Vincent de Paul Industrial Annex	83
Federal Training Centre	284
Leclerc Institution	422
Cowansville Institution	336
Joyceville Institution	447
Collins Bay Penitentiary	381
Warkworth Institution	217
Drumheller Institution	238
Matsqui (M) Institution	282
Matsqui (F) Institution	37
Mountain Prison (Doukhobors and
Others)	164
3,103
Minimum Security
Dorchester Farm Annex	68
Blue Mountain Correctional Camp	54
St. Vincent de Paul Farm Annex	58
Archambault (Minimum)	58
St. Hubert Centre	19
Joyceville Farm Annex	86
Collins Bay Farm Annex	85
Beaver Creek Correctional Camp	79
Landry Crossing Correctional Camp	59
Manitoba Farm Annex	96
Osborne Release Centre	13
Saskatchewan Farm Annex	65
William Head Institution	145
Agassiz Correctional Camp	58
West Georgia Centre	11
Total	7,381
3. 1967, 1,328; 1968, 1,493; 1969, 1,870.
Parolees are not classified as maximum, medium or minimum parolees and Parole Board statistics do not reflect the type of institution in which the parolee was confined.
4.	1, Dorchester Penitentiary; 5, St. Vincent de Paul Penitentiary; 1, Leclerc Institution; 2, Special Correctional Unit; 3, Archambault Institution; 3, Kingston Penitentiary; 1, Manitoba Farm Annex; 9, Saskatchewan Penitentiary; 1, Saskatchewan Farm Annex; 2, Drumheller Institution; 18, British Columbia Penitentiary; 12, Mountain Prison; *12, Matsqui Institution-Total 70.
* This figure does not include one inmate who escaped from Matsqui Institution in June, 1968 and is still unlawfully at large.
5.	1967, 19; 1968, 29; 1969, 12.
6.	1967, 12 months; 1968, and 1969, figures not yet available.


NATIONAL DEFENCE-INCREASE IN RENTS PAID BY SERVICEMEN IN DND ACCOMMODATION
Mr. Lambert (Edmonton: West):
1.	Has the Department of National Defence recently ordered an increase in rents to be paid by servicemen and families in DND accommodation and, if so, what is the nature of the increases and what is the effective date thereof?
2.	What has motivated such an increase, and if in the case of an increase in grants to municipalities in lieu of taxes, have such increases matched increases of taxes with respect to each base con-
[Mr. Kierans.l

cerned or has a uniform increase in rents been demanded of the affected servicemen?
3.	(a) What is the anticipated yield of the additional rent demand (b) what increase in payments in lieu of taxes are expected in the fiscal year 1970-71?


Yves Forest: I am informed by the Department of National Defence and the Department of Finance as follows: 1. Yes, effective 1 April, 1970. The amount will vary depending on type of accommodation but in no instance will the increase exceed $15 per month.
2.	Rent for Canadian Forces' married quarters was revised effective 1 April, 1968, at the direction of Treasury Board. All charges are based on the weighted national average of market rental values as appraised by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. A transitional period was established during which the rates in effect on 31 March, 1968, would be increased by $15 per month per year on 1 April. Two such increases have been imposed. Provision was also made for subsequent review and adjustment of charges if warranted on 1 April, 1970, and at intervals of two years thereafter.
The grants to municipalities in lieu of taxes have no bearing on the system of charges for married quarters.
3.	(a) As there are some 26,077 married quarters controlled by DND under the rental system, and administered by over 100 base commanders across Canada, records at Canadian Forces Headquarters are not maintained in a manner which would readily provide this information. However, it is estimated that approximately $4.5 million additional rent will accrue during 1970-71.
3.	(b) Government records are not kept in such a way as to indicate the amount of grants on individual properties and the necessary information is not readily available. On a percentage basis, the year to year growth rate of grants in lieu of taxes has recently averaged about 8 per cent. However, this includes growth as a result of the construction or acquisition of new federal property.
Questions
In the case of service accommodation, where new construction is relatively limited, the annual growth rate would be somewhat lower, perhaps about 6 or 7 per cent, depending very largely upon changes in municipal tax rates. In the absence of specific information about changes in municipal tax rates and levels of assessment in 1970-71, the percentage range of 6 to 7 is the best measure of the government's expectations for growth of grants in lieu of taxes on service accommodation.


ASSISTANCE TO CONSTRUCTION OF OLD PEOPLE'S HOMES
Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	By percentage, what is the federal government's contribution to the construction and outfitting of old people's homes?
2.	During the years 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968 and 1969 in the constituency of Richmond, how many old people's homes received federal government assistance in the construction and outfitting, where are they located and what amount was invested by the federal government?
3.	What was the provincial contribution to each of the above-mentioned homes?


Robert Knight Andras: 1. The financing of senior citizens' housing under Section 16 of the National Housing Act, to June, 1969, provided for loans of 90 per cent of the cost or value of the project. Under the provision to the National Housing Act of June, 1969, in which Section 16A was combined with Section 16, such loans may be 95 per cent of the cost or value of the project. Where such a loan is secured by a mortgage, the cost or value may include furnishings and equipment which become part of the real or immoveable property; where such a loan is secured by a debenture, the value or cost may also include moveable items of bedroom, lounge and cafeteria equipment, and specialized equipment such as hospital type beds and whirlpool baths in special type projects.
2.	See Table 1 attached.
3.	Information on the provincial contributions to such projects is not available.
Questions


TABLE 1
[Stage Direction]
NHA Loans Approved for Elderly Persons in the Municipal Counties of Richmond and Wolfe Province of Quebec 1965-1969
Location	Period	Loans	New Housing Units Hostel Beds		$000
Richmond County					
Bromptonville Town	
1968	i	4	34	273Richmond Town	
1969	i	6	53	438Asbestos Town	i	5	44	377Wolfe County	Weedon Municipality	
1968	i	-	39	253Disraeli Municipality	
1969	i	-	52	364
Note: CMHC statistical data are not recorded on a constituency basis.

Mr. Benjamin: 1.	What is the relationship between the Bank of Canada and the Government of Canada?
2.	For what reason is it inappropriate to answer questions on the internal administration of the Bank of Canada?
3.	To whom does the Bank of Canada answer on matters of its internal administration?


Edgar John Benson: 1.
The Bank of Canada is incorporated as a body politic and corporate pursuant to Section 2(1) of the Bank of Canada Act. The relationship between the Bank of Canada and the Government is established by the various provisions of the Act, i.e.,
Section 17(1) provides for capitalization and the issue of its shares to the Minister of Finance on behalf of Canada. The Minister is the sole shareholder.
Section 24(c) provides for the payment of the Bank's net income to the Receiver General for the credit of the Consolidated Revenue Fund.
Section 25(1), (4) and (5) provides for the appointment by the Governor in Council of the shareholder's auditors, for their direction by the Minister and for reports to him.
Section 26 provides for weekly and monthly returns to the Minister on the assets and liabilities of the Bank, for a monthly return regarding its investments and securities issued or guaranteed by Canada, and for a weekly return on notes in circulation.
Section 27 provides for the submission of an annual audited statement of the Bank's

accounts and the Governor's Annual Report to the Minister and for their tabling in Parliament.
Section 14(1) requires the Minister and the Governor to consult regularly on monetary policy and on its relation to general economic policy. Section 14(2) provides for a specific directive by the Minister with the approval of the Governor in Council to the Governor in the event a difference of opinion emerges between the Minister and the Bank concerning the monetary policy to be followed.
Section 20 provides that the Bank shall act as fiscal agent of the Government of Canada without charge. The Bank manages the Exchange Fund Account.
Section 21 gives the Bank the sole right to issue notes intended for circulation in Canada and provides that the form and material of the notes shall be approved by the Minister.
2.	By the Bank of Canada Act, Parliament vested the management of the internal administration of the Bank in its Board of Directors. Relevant portions of the Act are:
Section 5(1) provides that the management of the Bank shall be under its Board of Directors and stipulates that the Board shall be composed of the Governor, Deputy Governor and 12 Directors.
Section 6(1) provides that the Governor and Deputy Governor shall be appointed by the Directors with the approval of the Governor in Council.
Section 8 provides that the Governor is Chief Executive Officer of the Bank and on


behalf of the Board has the direction and control of the business of the Bank with authority to act in all matters not specifically reserved to the Board or Executive Committee by the Act or by-laws.
Section 13 provides for an Executive Committee and its composition, empowered to deal with any matter within the competence of the Board.
Section 15 empowers the Executive Committee to engage such staff as it deems necessary and the Board to establish by by-law a Pension Fund for employees.
Section 33 establishes the authority of the Board, with the approval of the Governor in Council, to make by-laws not repugnant to the provisions of the Act.
Other than the Reports and Returns specified in Sections 26 and 27 as mentioned in the answer to part 1, decisions as to information to be given concerning the activities of the Bank are made by the Board of Directors.
3.	To its Board of Directors.


INCENTIVE GRANT TO C. J. BROWN AND COMPANY
Mr. Burton: 1.	Has the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, under the Regional Incentives Act, authorized or provided an incentive grant to C. J. Brown & Co., Danville, Quebec and, if so, what is the amount of the grant?
2.	What is the total estimated cost of the project for which the grant was provided and what is the nature of the project and its location?
3.	Who are the directors and chief executive officers of C. J. Brown & Co. and what is the address of each?
4.	To what extent is this company non-resident or foreign-owned or controlled?
5.	What is the name and country of the known non-resident ownership in this company?


Yves Forest: I am informed by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and the Dominion Bureau of Statistics as follows: 1 and 2. This information was contained in the monthly report, tabled in Parliament on the operation of the Regional Development Act.
3. The directors and executive officers of C. J. Brown & Company Limited as at September 30, 1968 were as follows: W. S. Brown, President, Danville, Quebec. G. F. Brown, Vice-President, Danville, Quebec. C. E. Brown, Treasurer, Danville, Quebec. Mrs. H. A.
Questions
Brown, Secretary, Danville, Quebec. M. A. Currie, Director, Danville, Quebec.
4.	The company reports no shares held by non-residents, either directly or through intermediate holdings.
5.	None.


INCENTIVE GRANT TO BEN'S LIMITED
Mr. Burton: 1.	Has the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, under the Regional Incentives Act, authorized or provided an incentive grant to Ben's Limited, Halifax, Nova Scotia and, if so, what is the amount of the grant?
2.	What is the total estimated cost of the project for which the grant was provided and what is the nature of the project and its location?
3.	Who are the directors and chief executive officers of Ben's Limited and what is the address of each?
4.	To what extent is this company non-resident or foreign-owned or controlled?
5.	What is the name and country of the known non-resident ownership in this company?


Yves Forest: I am informed by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and the Dominion Bureau of Statistics as follows: 1 and 2. This information was contained in the monthly report, tabled in Parliament on the operation of the Regional Development Act.
3.	The directors and executive officers of Ben's Limited as at December 28, 1968 were as follows: F. M. Covert, President, 1959 Park-wood Terrace, Halifax; D. E. Sawyer, VicePresident, 804 Spring Garden Terrace Apts., Halifax; E. L. Stoddard, Secretary-Treasurer, 2061 Poplar Street, Halifax; J. J. Jodney, Director, Hartsport, N.S.; D. E. Yeadon, Director, R.R. No. 2, Brookside, Halifax; Ben Moir, Director, 5731 Pt Pleasant Drive, Halifax; J. W. E. Ming, Director, 500 Bank of Canada Building, Halifax.
4.	Non-residents have a 1 per cent interest in the voting shares of the company either directly or through other holdings.
5.	The majority of the voting shares are held by Ben's Holding Limited, Halifax, which in turn has a degree of non-resident ownership.


INCENTIVE GRANT TO ASSINCK BROS. LIMITED
Mr. Burton: 1.	Has the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, under the Regional Incentives Act, au-


Questions
thorized or provided an incentive grant to Assinck Bros. Limited, Markham, Ontario and, if so, what is the amount of the grant?
2.	What is the total estimated cost of the project for which the grant was provided and what is the nature of the project and its location?
3.	Who are the directors and chief executive officers of Assinck Bros. Limited and what is the address of each?
4.	To what extent is this company non-resident or foreign-owned or controlled?
5.	What is the name and country of the known non-resident ownership in this company?


Yves Forest: I am informed by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and the Dominion Bureau of Statistics as follows: 1 and 2. This information was contained in the monthly report, tabled in Parliament on the operation of the Regional Development Act.
3.	The directors and executive officers of Assinck Bros. Limited as at December 31, 1968 were as follows: Joseph Assinck, President, Markham, Ontario; Anton Assinck, VicePresident, Markham, Ontario; J. L. Cattanach, Director, Markham, Ontario; Irene White, Secretary-Treasurer, Markham, Ontario.
4.	The company reports no shares held by non-residents, either directly or through intermediate holdings.
5.	None.


INCENTIVE GRANT TO CANADIAN ASEA ELECTRIC
Mr. Burton: 1.	Has the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, under the Regional Incentives Act, authorized or provided an incentive grant to Canadian ASEA Electric, Montreal, Quebec and, if so, what is the amount of the grant?
2.	What is the total estimated cost of the project for which the grant was provided and what is the nature of the project and its location?
3.	Who are the directors and chief executive officers of Canadian ASEA Electric and what is the address of each?
4.	To what extent is this company non-resident or foreign-owned or controlled?
5.	What is the name and country of the known non-resident ownership in this company?


Yves Forest: I am informed by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and the Dominion Bureau of Statistics as follows: 1 and 2. This information was contained in the monthly report, tabled in Parliament on the operation of the Regional Development Act.

3.	The directors and executive officers of Canadian ASEA Electric Ltd., as at December 31, 1968 were as follows: A. C. de Lery, President, 475 Stannock Ave., Town of Mt. Royal; A. K. Graham, Director, 780 Eglinton Ave., Toronto; A. T. Vrethem, Director, Kammarag, Vasteras, Sweden; C. R. Nicolin, Director, Vasteras, Sweden; E. Leetma, Secretary-Treasurer, 5165 Trenholme, Montreal.
4.	The company is 100 per cent non-resident owned.
5.	Allmanna Svensha Elektrisha Akliebo-baget, Sweden, is the parent.


INCENTIVE GRANT TO DOWNIE STREET SAWMILLS LIMITED
Mr. Burton: 1.	Has the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, under the Regional Incentives Act, authorized or provided an incentive grant to Downie Street Sawmills, Ltd. Revelstoke, B.C. and, if so, what is the amount of the grant?
2.	What is the total estimated cost of the project for which the grant was provided and what is the nature of the project and its location?
3.	Who are the directors and chief executive officers of Downie Street Sawmills, Ltd. and what is the address of each?
4.	To what extent is this company non-resident or foreign-owned or controlled?
5.	What is the name and country of the known non-resident ownership in this company?


Yves Forest: I am informed by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and the Dominion Bureau of Statistics as follows: 1 and 2. This information was contained in the monthly report, tabled in Parliament on the operation of the Regional Development Act.
3.	The directors and executive officers of Downie Street Sawmills Ltd., as at December 31, 1968 were as follows: Victor Camozzi, Director, Revelstoke, B.C.; Steve McKenzie, Director, Revelstoke, B.C.; Sam Olynyk, Director, Revelstoke, B.C.
4.	The company reports no shares held by non-residents, either directly or through intermediate holdings.
5.	None.


INCENTIVE GRANT TO DULOD LTEE
Mr. Burfon: 1. Has the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, under the Regional Incentives Act, authorized or provided an incentive grant to Dulod Ltee.,- Rouyp, Quebec and, if so, what is the amount of- the "grant? '


2.	What is the total estimated cost of the project for which the grant was provided and what is the nature of the project and its location?
3.	Who are the directors and chief executive officers of Dulod Ltee. and what is the address of each?
4.	To what extent is this company non-resident or foreign-owned or controlled?
5.	What is the name and country of the known non-resident ownership in this company?


Yves Forest: I am informed by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs as follows: 1 and 2. This information was contained in the monthly report, tabled in Parliament on the operation of the Regional Development Act.
3.	This company was incorporated federally on July 22, 1969. The company has not yet had to file its Annual Summary disclosing the names of its directors; however, the application for incorporation indicates the following names and addresses of the provisional directors: Marcel Cinq-Mars, 144 Saguenay, No-randa, P.Q.; Alfred Leclerc, 15th Street, No-randa, P.Q.; Paul Denoncourt, 336 Menard Street, Rouyn, P.Q.; Roger Guimont, 87, 20th Street, Noranda, P.Q.; Gilles Lepine, 167b Gamble West, Rouyn, P.Q.
4 and 5. No information available.
INCENTIVE GRANT TO H. J. CRABBE & SONS


Mr. Burton: 1.	Has the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, under the Regional Incentives Act, authorized or provided an incentive grant to H. J. Crabbe & Sons, Bristol, N.B. and, if so, what is the amount of the grant?
2.	What is the total estimated cost of the project for which the grant was provided and what is the nature of the project and its location?
3.	Who are the directors and chief executive officers of H. J. Crabbe & Sons and what is the address of each?
4.	To what extent is this company non-resident or foreign-owned or controlled?
5.	What is the name and country of the known non-resident ownership in this company?


Yves Forest: I am informed by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and the Dominion Bureau of Statistics as follows: 1 and 2. This information was contained in the monthly report, tabled in Parliament on the operation of the Regional Development Act.
3.	The directors and executive officers of
H.	J. Crabbe & Sons Ltd., as at November 30,
Questions
1968 were as follows: Harold J. Crabbe, President, Bristol, N.B.; Deane R. Crabbe, Secretary-Treasurer, Bristol, N.B.; Paul H. Crabbe, 1st Vice-President, Fredericton, N.B.; Neville J. Crabbe, 2nd Vice-President, Bristol, N.B.
4.	The company reports no shares held by non-residents, either directly or through intermediate holdings.
5.	None.


DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE-ENGAGEMENT OF CONSULTANTS 1950 TO 1970
Mr. Robinson: How many consultants have been engaged by the Department of Finance during each year 1950 to 1970 inclusive and (a) what was the cost of the consultants (b) how were the consultants utilized (c) for what reason were the consultants necessary?


Edgar John Benson: (a) Fiscal year	Number	Cost $1949-50 through 1959-60	Nil	-1960-61	5	45,7171961-62	2	13,8381962-63	1	14,4701963-64	5	29,5671964-65	5	41,1151965-66	16	167,5721966-67	10	91,2341967-68	16	177,6411968-69	7	55,8801969-70 (to date)	2	24,219(b)	To study and report on matters then under consideration within the responsibilities of the Department, and of the Mint, the Treasury Board Secretariat and the Computer Services Bureau which were part of the Department at the time. The studies were on specific aspects in the fields of economic analysis and forecasting, taxation, revenue forecasting, expenditure control, international trade, international liquidity, government guaranteed lending programs, personnel management, data processing and minting equipment and facilities.(c)	When considering certain questions, it is advantageous to the Department to have advice from outside experts to augment its own expertise. Also, provided the subject matter is appropriate, it is more economical to arrange time consuming background studies by contract on an as required basis than to increase the permanent establishment of the Department.
Questions


COMPUTERS IN PLACE OP ANIMALS IN EXPERIMENTATION
Mr. Mather: Is the government giving consideration to the use of computers in place of animals in experimentation?


Yves Forest: No.


HOUSING, TOTAL POPULATION AND INDIANS
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	(a) For the last year for which figures were available, what was the total per capita investment in housing for the people of Canada (b) in the same year, what was the total per capita investment for Indian housing from the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development appropriations, band revenues, and individual contributions?
2.	What were the average salaries and wages (excluding military pay) for 1969 earned by Canada's labour force and, what was the average income of Canadian Indian families excluding general assistance and Family Allowances?
3. What was the average age at death for the last year for which figures are available for (a) all Canadians-male and female (b) Canadian Indians?
4.	(a) Of the total Canadian population, how many families live in houses of three rooms or less (b) of the total Indian population, how many families live in houses of three rooms or less?
5.	(a) Of the total Canadian population, how many live in homes which are provided with electricity, sewer services or septic tanks, running water, indoor bath (b) of the total Indian population, how many live in homes which are provided with electricity, sewer services, or septic tanks, running water, indoor baths?


Yves Forest: 
Mr. Burton: 1.	Has the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, under the Regional Incentives Act, authorized or provided an incentive grant to Job Brothers & Co., St. John's, Nfld., and, if so, what is the amount of the grant?
2.	What is the total estimated cost of the project for which the grant was provided and what is the nature of the project and its location?
3.	Who are the directors and chief executive officers of Job Brothers & Co. and what is the address of each?
4.	To what extent is this company non-resident or foreign-owned or controlled?
5.	What is the name and country of the known non-resident ownership in this company?


Yves Forest: I am informed by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and the Dominion Bureau of Statistics as follows: 1 and 2. This information was contained in the monthly report tabled in Parliament on the operation of the Regional Development Act.
3.	The directors and executive officers of Job Brothers and Company Limited as at January 31, 1968 were as follows: Lewis H. M. Ayre, President c/o Ayre & Sons Ltd., St. John's, Newfoundland; Ian J. Reid, VicePresident & Managing Director, Rennie's Mill Rd., St. John's, Newfoundland; Ray M. Clancy, Director, May Park Place, St. John's, Newfoundland; Leo. G. Keough, Director, Larch Place, St. John's, Newfoundland; Wilfred D. Moore, Director, May Park Place, St. John's, Newfoundland; P. K. McGrath, Director, Le Marchant Road, St. John's, Newfoundland; Eric D. Knight, Secretary, Brookfield Road, St. John's, Newfoundland.
4.	Non-residents have a 22.7 per cent interest in the voting shares of the company either directly or through other holdings.
5.	The majority of the voting shares are held by Northlantic Fisheries Ltd., St. John's, Newfoundland which in turn has a degree of non-resident ownership.


INCENTIVE GRANT TO J. H. HUSCROFT, LTD.
Mr. Burton: 1.	Has the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, under the Regional Incentives Act, authorized or provided an incentive grant to J. H. Huscroft Ltd., Brickson, B.C. and, if so, what is the amount of the grant?
2.	What is the total estimated cost of the project for which the grant was provided and what is the nature of the project and its location?
3.	Who are the directors and chief executive officers of J. H. Huscroft Ltd. and what is the address of each?
4.	To what extent is this company non-resident or foreign-owned or controlled?
5.	What is the name and country of the known non-resident ownership in this company?


Yves Forest: I am informed by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and the Dominion Bureau of Statistics as follows: 1 and 2. This information was contained in the monthly report, tabled in Parliament on the operation of the Regional Development Act.
3.	The directors and executive officers of J. H. Huscroft Ltd., as at December 31, 1968
Questions
were as follows: Irwin K. Huscroft, Director, Erickson, B.C. Amy Huscraft (Executrix of the estate of J. H. Huscroft).
4.	The company reports no shares held by non-residents, either directly or through intermediate holdings.
5.	None.


APPLICATIONS OF GRAIN ELEVATOR COMPANIES UNDER REVIEW-LABOUR (STANDARDS) CODE, PART 1
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	How many applications of Grain Elevator Companies who applied for deferment and for suspension of Part 1 of the Canada Labour (Standards) Code are still under review?
2.	When were these applications made to the department?
3.	How many workers are covered by each of these applications?
4.	What are the reasons for the applications for deferment still being under review by the department?
5.	What is the date when the department expects to have settled all these cases which are under review?


Hon. Bryce Maclcasey (Minisier of Labour):: 1.	None.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	Not applicable.
4.	Not applicable.
5.	Not applicable.


APPLICATIONS OF HIGHWAY TRANSPORT COMPANIES UNDER REVIEW-LABOUR (STANDARDS) CODE, PART 1
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	How many applications of Highway Transport Companies who applied for deferment and for suspension of Part 1 of the Canada Labour (Standards) Code are still under review?
2.	When were these applications made to the department?
3.	How many workers are covered by each of these applications?
4.	What are the reasons for the applications for deferment still being under review by the department?
5.	What is the date when the department expects to have settled all these cases which are under review?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: 1.	None.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	Not applicable.
4.	Not applicable.
5.	Not applicable.


Questions


APPLICATIONS OF MINING AND PROCESSING COMPANIES UNDER REVIEW-LABOUR (STANDARDS) CODE, PART 1
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	How many applications of Mining and Processing Companies who applied for deferment and for suspension of Part 1 of the Canada Labour (Standards) Code are still under review?
2.	When were these applications made to the department?
3.	How many workers are covered by each of these applications?
4.	What are the reasons for the applications for deferment still being under review by the department?
5.	What is the date when the department expects to have settled all these cases which are under review?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: 1.	None.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	Not applicable.
4.	Not applicable.
5.	Not applicable.


APPLICATIONS OF SHIPPING (INCLUDING FERRIES) COMPANIES UNDER REVIEW-LABOUR (STANDARDS) CODE-PART I
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	How many applications of Shipping (including Ferries) Companies who applied for deferment and for suspension of Part I of the Canada Labour (Standards) Code are still under review?
2.	When were these applications made to the department?
3.	How many workers are covered by each of these applications?
4.	What are the reasons for the applications for deferment still being under review by the department?
5.	What is the date when the department expects to have settled all these cases which are under review?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: 1. None.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	Not applicable.
4.	Not applicable.
5.	Not applicable.


APPLICATIONS OF STEVEDORE AND LONGSHORE COMPANIES UNDER REVIEW-LABOUR (STANDARDS) CODE, PART I
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	How many applications of Stevedore and Longshore Companies who applied for deferment and for suspension of Part I of the Canada Labour (Standards) Code are still under review?

2.	When were these applications made to the department?
3.	How many workers are covered by each of these applications?
4.	What are the reasons for the applications for deferment still being under review by the department?
5.	What is the date when the department expects, to have settled all these cases which are under review?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: 1.	None.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	Not applicable.
4.	Not applicable.
5.	Not applicable.


STABILIZATION OF POTATO INDUSTRY
Mr. MacDonald (Egmonl);: 1.	Did the Government of Canada receive a unanimous Resolution from the Legislature of Prince Edward Island with respect to stabilizing the potato-industry and to establishing a programme to this end?
2.	When was this communication received?
3.	What was the response of the Government?
4.	What report on these matters has been made to the Legislature of Prince Edward Island?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: 1.	Yes.
2.	April 17, 1969.
3.	The Prime Minister replied by letter April 24, 1969, to the speaker of the Legislature of Prince Edward Island, advising that a starch diversion program had been authorized under the Agricultural stabilization Act.
4.	Not known.


CLOSURE OF POST OFFICES SINCE 1968
Mr. Korchinski: 1.	How many post offices, in each province, have been closed from 1968 to date?
2.	How many post offices, in each province, are scheduled for closing in 1970?
3.	How many post offices in each province, are in existence where the revenue is below expenditures?
4.	How many post offices, in each province, do not derive sufficient revenue to offset costs but are maintained because of isolation?
5.	In how many post offices that have been closed in each province, have there been either salary increases or increased payments for rental or other services within the past two years?


Eric William Kierans: 1. Nfld.,


42; P.E.I., 32; N.S., 101; N.B., 77; P.Q., 188; Ont., 263; Man., 51; Sask., 109; Alta., 92; B.C., 33; Yukon, 1; N.W.T., 1.
2.	Nfld., 83; P.E.I., 3; N.S., 147; N.B., 52; P.Q., 73; Ont., 84; Man., 49; Sask., 62; Alta., 30; B.C., 5; Yukon, Nil; N.W.T., Nil.
3.	Departmental records are not maintained in such a way that would make it possible to compile these statistics.
4.	Departmental records are not maintained in such a way as to provide that information.
5.	Payments to all Revenue Postmasters for services provided were increased effective October 1, 1968.


LABELLING OF FOODS CONTAINING CYCLAMATES
Mr. Fairweather: 1.	Is consideration being given to properly labelled food products containing cyclamates (excluding soft drinks) to be sold in Canada?
2.	Are plans being co-ordinated with those announced by the United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare for sale of such foods after the expiry dates of April 1 and June 1, 1970?
3.	Has the government received representations from the Canadian Diabetic Association requesting a plan which will assure availability of foods containing cyclamates until a alternative process is developed?
4 Are alternative supplies available now for diabetics?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. After careful consideration, the decision has been made to prohibit the sale of foods containing cyclamates in Canada, regardless of the labelling used, after the deadlines announced October 21, 1969.
2.	No. Close contact is being maintained with U.S. authorities. However, since the decision has been made to prohibit the sale of foods containing cyclamates in Canada, no co-ordination in regard to the sale of such products is required.
3.	The government has received representations from, and discussed the cyclamate situation fully with, the Canadian Diabetic Association. It is the view of the medical advisors of the Association that there is no objection to the withdrawal of cyclamate as a sweetening agent in artificially sweetened fruits and preserves provided that these food items continue to be available in palatable form.
4.	Alternative supplies of foods for diabetics are becoming available. The food in-
Questions
dustry has indicated that it will be possible to produce dietary spreads without the use of cyclamates. The major manufacturer will have such spreads on the market by April 1, 1970. Formulation research is in progress on dietetic fruits, and it is anticipated that satisfactory products which do not contain cyclamates will also be available by the deadline of September 1, 1970.


SUBSIDY TO WHEAT GROWERS, 1960 TO 1969
Mr. Robinson: What was the total subsidy paid to wheat growers during each year 1960 to 1969 inclusive?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: It is not possible to identify payments made to wheat farmers because they cannot be identified from other grain producers; however, payments made on the basis of grain producers were as follows: (millions of dollars) 1960-61, $44,679; 1961-62, $87,314; 196263, $7,534; 1963-64, $2,248; 1964-65, $3,180; 1965-66, $605,000; 1966-67, nil; 1967-68, nil; 1968-69, $2,625.


INCENTIVE GRANT TO MULCO INC.
Mr. Burton: 1.	Has the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, under the Regional Incentives Act, authorized or provided an incentive grant to Mulco Inc., Saint John, N. B. and, if so, what is the amount of the grant?
2 What is the total estimated cost of the project for which the grant was provided and what is the nature of the project and its location?
3.	Who are the directors and chief executive officers of Mulco Inc., and what is the address of each?
4.	To what extent is this company non-resident or foreign-owned or controlled?
5.	What is the name and country of the known non-resident ownership in this company?
Mr. Yves Fores! (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council): I am informed by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and the Dominion Bureau of Statistics as follows: 1. and 2. This information was contained in the monthly report, tabled in Parliament on the operation of the Regional Development Act.
3. The directors and executive officers of Mulco Incorporated as shown on their 1968 return were: Leo-Paul Camirand, President, 162 Labonte, Longueuil, P.Q.; Guy Pare, VicePresident, 8190, cure Clermont, Ville d'Anjou,


Questions
P.Q.; J. C. Yezeau, Treasurer, 2433 boul. Lau-rier, Lafleche, P.Q.; Rene Simard, Secretary, 2433 boul. Laurier, Lafleche, P.Q.
4.	The company reports no shares held by non-residents either directly or through intermediate holdings.
5.	None.


INCENTIVE GRANT TO WOODS-DRYDEN PAPER BAGS LTD.
Mr. Burton: 1.	Has the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, under the Regional Incentives Act, authorized or provided an incentive grant to Woods-Dryden Paper Bags, Ltd., Winnipeg, Manitoba and, if so, what is the amount of the grant?
2.	What is the total estimated cost of the project for which the grant was provided and what is the nature of the project and its location?
3.	Who are the directors and chief executive officers of Woods-Dryden Paper Bags, Ltd. and what is the address of each?
4.	To what extent is this company non-resident or foreign-owned or controlled?
5.	What is the name and country of the known non-resident ownership in this company?


Yves Forest: I am informed by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and the Dominion Bureau of Statistics as follows: 1. and 2. This information was contained in the monthly report, tabled in Parliament on the operation of the Regional Development Act.
3.	The directors and executive officers of Woods-Dryden Paper Bags, Ltd., as at December 31, 1968 were: A. C. Hill, President, 3534 Ontario Street, Montreal 25, P.Q.; T. S. Jones, Vice-President, 272 River Heights Drive, Dry-den, Ontario; W. D. King, Treasurer, 3152 De Galais, Quebec 10, P.Q.; G. M. Harquail, Secretary, 738 Dalquier Ave., Ste. Foy, Quebec 10, P.Q.; D. H. O'Brien, Director, 1A Dale Ave., Apt. 304, Rosedale, Toronto, Ontario; B. D. Rose, Director, 255 Dunvegan, Toronto, Ontario; David Young, Director, 1370 Leblanc Avenue, Sillery, P.Q.
4.	Non-residents have an 83.2 per cent interest in the voting shares of the company.
5.	The non-resident interest resides primarily in the United Kingdom and is exercised through a network of affiliated Canadian corporations. The principal corporations involved in the network are Anglo Canadian Pulp and Paper Mills Ltd., Dryden Paper Co. Ltd., and Reed Corrugated Cases Ltd. Other affiliates and the extent of inter-corporate re-
[Mr. Forest.)
lationships are documented in Complex Number 753, DBS Publication 61-508, Inter-Corporate Ownership, 1967.


INCENTIVE GRANT TO STANDARD KNITTING COMPANY
Mr. Burion: 1.	Has the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, under the Regional Incentives Act, authorized or provided an incentive grant to Standard Knitting Co., Winnipeg, Manitoba and, if so, what is the amount of the grant?
2 What is the total estimated cost of the project for which the grant was provided and what is the nature of the project and its location?
3.	Who are the directors and chief executive officers of Standard Knitting Co. (1967) and what is the address of each?
4.	To what extent is this company non-resident or foreign-owned or controlled?
5.	What is the name and country of the known non-resident ownership in this company?


Yves Forest: I am informed by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and the Dominion Bureau of Statistics as follows: 1. and 2. This information was contained in the monthly report, tabled in Parliament on the operation of the Regional Development Act.
3.	The directors and executive officers of Standard Knitting Co. (1967) Ltd. as shown on their 1969 return were: Louis Kliman, President, 648 Waterloo, Winnipeg 9, Manitoba; Hugh Lowery, Vice-President, 734 Kil-donan Dr. E., Kildonan.
4.	The company reports no shares held by non-residents, either directly or through intermediate holdings.
5.	None.


INCENTIVE GRANT TO SIMMONS LIMITED
Mr. Burion: 1.	Has the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, under the Regional Incentives Act, authorized or provided an incentive grant to Simmons Limited, Dartmouth, N.S. and, if so, what is the amount of the grant?
2.	What is the total estimated cost of the project for which the grant was provided and what is the nature of the project and its location?
3.	Who are the directors and chief executive officers of Simmons Limited and what is the address of each?
4.	To what extent is this company non-resident or foreign-owned or controlled?
5.	What is the name and country of the known non-resident ownership in this company?


Yves Forest: I am informed by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and the Dominion Bureau of Statistics as follows: 1. and 2. This information was contained in the monthly report, tabled in Parliament on the operation of the Regional Development Act.
3.	The directors and executive officers of Simmons Limited as at December 31, 1968 were as follows: R. A. Warren, President, 4300 Western Avenue, Westmount, Quebec; G. T. Dawson, Vice-President, 18 Willow Avenue, Westmount, Quebec; D. B. Dougherty, Vice-President, 170 Chester Avenue, Town of Mount Royal, P.Q.; H. F. Riles, VicePresident, 162 Ruskin Drive, Beaconfield, Quebec; A. C. Guthrie, Director, 4 Girouard Avenue, Dorval, Quebec; J. T. Logan, Director, 300 Park Avenue, New York 22, N.Y.; A. H. Mallette, Director, 88 Dufferin Road, Hampstead, Quebec; J. A. McFadden, Director, 29 Pleasant Street, Winnipeg, Manitoba;
J.	V. Quarles, Director, 300 Park Avenue, New York 22, N.Y.; G. G. Simmons Jr., Director, 300 Park Avenue, New York 22, N.Y.; J. D. Annard, Director, 6555 Laburnum, Vancouver, B.C.
4.	The company is 100 per cent owned by a non-resident parent.
5.	The parent company is the Simmons Company, New York.


INCENTIVE GRANT TO PLASTALENE CORP.
Mr. Burton: 1.	Has the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, under the Regional Incentives Act, authorized or provided an incentive grant to Plas-talene Corp., Granby, Quebec and, if so, what is the amount of the grant?
2 What is the total estimated cost of the project for which the grant was provided and what is the nature of the project and its location?
3.	Who are the directors and chief executive officers to Plastalene Corp. and what is the address of each?
4.	To what extent is this company non-resident or foreign-owned or controlled?
5.	What is the name and country of the known non-resident ownership in this company?


Yves Forest: I am informed by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and the Dominion Bureau of Statistics as follows: 1. and 2. This information was contained in the monthly report, tabled in Parliament on the operation of the Regional Development Act.
3. The directors and executive officers of Plastalene Corp. as shown on their 1969 re-
Questions
turn are: J. Paul Pritchard, President, 145 Dufferin, St., Granby, P.Q.; John Bonnett, Vice-President, 47 Drummond Street, Granby, Quebec; Normand Coderre, Vice-President, 89 Hebert Street, Granby, P.Q.; John R. Hannan, Secretary, 125 Balfour Avenue, Mt. Royal, P.Q.; Jerome C. Smyth, 64 Roselawn Crescent, Mt. Royal, P.Q.
4.	The company reports no shares held by non-residents, either directly or through intermediate holdings.
5.	None.


INCENTIVE GRANT TO MONTROSE WORSTED MILLS INC.
Mr. Burton: 1.	Has the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, under the Regional Incentives Act, authorized or provided an incentive grant to Montrose Worsted Mills Inc., Montreal, Quebec and, if so, what is the amount of the grant?
2.	What is the total estimated cost of the project for which the grant was provided and what is the nature of the project and its location?
3.	Who are the directors and chief executive officers of Montrose Worsted Mills Inc. and what is the address of each?
4.	To what extent is this company non-resident or foreign-owned or controlled?
5.	What is the name and country of the known non-resident ownership in this company?


Yves Forest: I am informed by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and the Dominion Bureau of Statistics as follows: 1. and 2. This information was contained in the monthly report, tabled in Parliament on the operation of the Regional Development Act.
3.	The directors and executive officers of Montrose Worsted Mills, Inc., as shown on their 1968 returns were as follows: Myron I. Israel, President, 440 Ontario West, Montreal, P.Q.; William Israel, Vice-President, 5802 Wilderton, Montreal, P.Q.; Montagne Israel, Secretary-Treasurer, 728 Upper Roslyn, West-mount, P.Q.
4.	The company reports no shares held by non-residents either directly or through intermediate holdings.
5.	None.


MANPOWER TRAINING AGREEMENTS WITH PROVINCES
Mr. MacDonald (Egmonl): 1.	What agreements were signed with the provinces for the year 1969-70 with respect to Manpower Training?


Questions
2 What percentage of increase in the volume of training is occurring in each province?
3.	What amount of money is being expended, by province?
4.	In Prince Edward Island in 1968-69 of the 2,069 adults who took courses under the federal government's Occupational Training Programme (a) what was the nature of these courses (b) what was the average length (c) how many of the graduates of these programmes are now regularly employed (d) how many are in a further programme this year?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: 
MAIL TRANSPORT TENDERS, LEVIS-S T. - PHILEM ON
Mr. Lamberi (Bellechas-se): 1.	What are the names and addresses of the persons who tendered for mail transport between Levis and St-Philemon?
2.	What was the amount of the bid by each?
3.	To whom was the contract awarded and in what amount
4.	What is the duration of the contract?


Eric William Kierans: 1 and 2.
Levis and St-Philemon, H.S. Mrs. Jeanne Richard, 77 Dorval, Levis, $8,240; Jacques Duchesneau, St Raphael, $8,500; Adeodat Cliche, 4 Chateaubriand, Levis, $8,767.29; Mrs. Bertha Gilbert Remillard, 81 Dorval, Levis, $8,770; Eugene Remillard, St Raphael, $9,000; Eudore Remillard, 81 Dorval, Levis, $9,380; Armand Remillard 77 Dorval, Levis, $9,900; Leopold Picard, Box 13, Levis, $9,995; Jacques Simard, 1301 Place Gascogne, Quebec 7, $10,108; Jean Marc Bernard, St Raphael, $10,480; Oscar Couture, 10 Bisson, Apt. 4, St-Romuald, $10,782.36; Lionel Marquis, St-Gervais, $11,000; Jos Roland Therrien, 19 Cote, Lauzon, $11,800; Roland Belanger, Saint-Vallier, $12,000; Clermont Quirion, 159

Ave Ducharme, Ville Vanier, Quebec 8, $12,000; Jos Roland Therrien, 19 Cote, Lauzon, $13,700 (Cancelled); Transol Inc., Box 94, Station-B, Quebec 2, $14,329; Egide Gagnon, St-Joseph St., St-Michel, $14,500; Frank Glo-de Ltee, 774 Du Roi, Quebec, $15,250; Gaston Guay, 66 de la Visitation, Levis, $15,650; Frangois Nolin Ltee, 895-lere Ave., Quebec 3, $16,224; Louis Henri Metivier, 130 St. Augustin, Levis, $17,200; Yvon Pelletier, 21 Sau-vageau, Levis, $20,130; Richard Cantin, St-Jean Chrysostome de Levis, $24,012.
3.	Mrs. Jeanne Richard at $8,240 per annum.
4.	Five years.


GUARANTEED INCOME SUPPLEMENT REPAYMENTS
Mr. Rynard: How many people receiving the Guaranteed Income Supplement are making payments back to the government?


John Carr Munro: There are at present 24,469 people receiving the Guaranteed Income Supplement who are making payments back to the Government.


PAYMENT OF MEDICARE PREMIUMS FOR INDIANS
Mr. Yewchuk: Until what date does the federal government plan to pay premiums on Medicare for Indian people?


John Carr Munro: Funds have been appropriated by Parliament for the purpose of paying Medicare premiums for Indian people, up to March 31, 1970, and estimates for the year 1970-71 would provide for continuation of payments during the next fiscal year. Such payments are made on behalf of needy Indians resident on reserves, or pursuing, or having recently pursued the Indian mode of life.
A change will come when all provinces collecting premiums extend to needy Indians the same benefits by way of premium subsidies that they extend to non-Indian residents in need. Making hospital and medical care insurance benefits available to all residents under uniform terms and conditions is prescribed in the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act and in the Medical Care Act.
Questions


CMHC LOAN, HOME FOR THE AGED, SEPT-ILES
Mr. Blouin: Did Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation make a loan for the construction of a home for the aged in Sept-iles, in the constituency of Mani-couagan and, if so, what was the amount of this loan?


Robert Knight Andras: In February, 1969, Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation approved a loan under Section 16A of the National Housing Act, through the Quebec Housing Corporation, to Foyer d'hebergement de Sept-iles, Inc., in the City of Sept-iles. This loan, in the amount of $492,120 has financed the construction of a rental housing project consisting of six dwelling units and 62 hostel beds to accommodate elderly persons.


HEALTH AND WELFARE INDIAN EXPENDITURES FOR 1966 TO 1969
Mr. Mazankowski: What was the total expenditure for the Indian population, for health and welfare in the fiscal years 1966-67, 1967-68 and 1968-69?


Yves Forest: I am informed by the Department of National Health and Welfare and the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development as follows: Total Expenditures on Health:	1966-67,
$23,633,559;	1967-68,	$26,056,040;	1968-69,

Total Expenditures on Welfare: 1966-67, $19,371,000;	1967-68,	$23,564,000;	1968-69,


$29,644,000. INCENTIVE GRANT TO MOTHER'S OWN BAKERY LIMITED
Mr. Burton: 1.	Has the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, under the Regional Incentives Act, authorized or provided an incentive grant to Mother's Own Bakery Limited, Fox Creek, N.B. and, if so, what is the amount of the grant?
2.	What is the total estimated cost of the project for which the grant was provided and what is the nature of the project and its location?
3.	Who are the directors and chief executive officers of Mother's Own Bakery Limited and what is the address of each?
4.	To what extent is this company non-resident or foreign-owned or controlled?
5.	What is the name and country of the known non-resident ownership in this company?


Yves Forest: I am in-


Questions
formed by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and the Dominion Bureau of Statistics as follows: 1 and 2. This information was contained in- the monthly report, tabled in Parliament on the operation of the Regional Development Act.
3.	The directors and executive officers of Mother's Own Bakery Ltd., as at December 31, 1988 were as follows: Armand Cormier, President, 60 Marjorie St., Moncton, N.B.; Simon Bujold, Treasurer, 92 Connaught, Moncton, N.B.; Gilbert Finn, Secretary, St. Anselme, N.B.
4.	The company reports no shares held by non-residents, either directly or through intermediate holdings.
5.	None.


INCENTIVE GRANT TO TRANSCAN CUSTOM HOMES LIMITED
Mr. Burton: 1.	Has the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, under the Regional Incentives Act, authorized or provided an incentive grant to Transcan Custom Homes Ltd., Kenora, Ontario and, if so, what is the amount of the grant.
2.	What is the total estimated cost of the project for which the grant was provided and what is the nature of the project and its location?
3.	Who are the directors and chief executive officers of Transcan Custom Homes Ltd. and what is the address of each?
4.	To what extent is this company non-resident or foreign-owned or controlled?
5.	What is the name and country of the known non-resident ownership in this company?


Yves Forest: I am informed by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and the Dominion Bureau of Statistics as follows: 1 and 2. This information was contained in the monthly report, tabled in Parliament on the operation of the Regional Development Act.
3.,	4., and 5. Transcan Compact Homes Ltd. was incorporated in Ontario April 29, 1968. The corporate name was changed to Transcan Custom Homes Ltd., September 22, 1969. They have not yet been required to file the appropriate returns under the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act from which the answer to the question might be derived by virtue of recent incorporation.


GARNISHEEING OF OLD AGE SECURITY CHEQUES
Mr. Slewarf (Marquetie): 1. How many recipients of Old Age Security in the present fiscal year have had their cheques

garnisheed by the Department of National Health and Welfare to recover benefit payments under the Act which they decided they were not entitled to, and in how many of these instances was (a) the total amount of the Old Age Security pension garnisheed (b) more than 50 per cent of the Old Age Security pension recovered by the Department?
2.	In the fiscal years 1967-68 and 1968-69, what were the totals and what number in each year had to forfeit (a) the total pension (b) more than 50 per cent of their Old Age Security cheques?


John Carr Munro: 1 and 2. Old Age Security statistics are not maintained in such a way as to make it possible to provide this information.


Mr. Paproski:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. You have asked us to put many of our questions on the Order Paper. We have complied with your request and have done so. I notice that today there are about 116 pages of unanswered questions, constituting a booklet about as thick as the Ottawa telephone directory. I am told the number is the largest in 20 years. Surely you should be able to do something about the contemptuous way that the government treats written questions.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I trust that the hon. member is not suggesting that it is the responsibility of the Chair to see that questions are answered. The Chair has noted the submissions of the hon. member, and if there is any way that the Chair can assist in remedying the difficulty to which he points I will do what I can.


P.E.I. BUDGET SUBMITTED UNDER DEVELOPMENT PLAN 1970-71
Mr. McQuaid: 1.	Has a proposed budget been submitted by the Province of Prince Edward Island to the Government of Canada with respect to moneys required for the fiscal year 1970-71 under the Development Plan?
2.	What are the details proposed in the budget submitted by the Province?
3.	Has the whole or any part of this proposed budget been approved by the federal government and, if so, what are the details of the projects approved?


Mr. Martin P. O'Connell (Parliamentary-Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: 1. No, but a proposed budget has been submitted for the approval of the government of Canada and the province of Prince Edward Island by the joint federal-provincial advisory board for the Prince Edward Island plan.

2. and 3. Until such approval has been obtained, no detailed disclosures can be made.


EXCLUSION OF PRINCE ALBERT AND ADJOINING AREAS FROM INCENTIVE PROGRAM
Mr. Diefenbaker: What are the reasons for the exclusions of the City of Prince Albert and adjoining areas from the Incentive Program, while including other areas in the province where unemployment and growth is greater?


Abram Ernest Epp: The Prince Albert area is not the part of Saskatchewan where growth has been most slow. The areas designated are those where industrial incentives can be expected to be most effective in improving employment for the benefit of people in slow growth regions.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Fortin: How many new employees have joined the Dominion Bureau of Statistics since April 1, according to (a) grade (b) category (c) salary (d) country of origin and (e) mother tongue?
Return tabled.


GOVERNMENT LOANS IN AND OUTSIDE CANADA
Mr. Matte: 1.	What amount has the Canadian Government loaned to date to foreign companies or countries, and (a) what companies or countries are involved (b) what amount has been loaned to each one of these companies or countries (c) what is the duration of each of these loans (d) what is the interest on each of these loans (e) what security did the government require before agreeing to each loan?
2.	What amount has the Canadian Government loaned to date to Canadian farmers, and (a) what is the average duration of these loans (b) what is the average interest on these loans (c) what security did the government require before agreeing to these loans?
3.	Has the Canadian Government granted any loans to date to provinces and, if so (a) to what provinces (b) in what amounts (c) at what interest rates (d) for what period of time?
4.	Has the Canadian Government granted any loans to date to municipalities and, if so (a) which municipalities (b) how much has been loaned to each (c) at what rate of interest (d) for what period of time?
Return tabled.
Orders for Return


SALARIES AND EXPENSE ACCOUNTS, FEDERAL PERSONNEL
Mr. Alexander: 1.	How many persons employed by the federal government, including the Armed Forces and the RCMP earn $12,000 or more annually, shown by department or agency?
2.	How many, during the past two fiscal years, have submitted expense accounts for travel, removal, accommodation, entertainment or miscellaneous expenditures totalling $6,000 per year or more?
Return tabled.


NATIONAL CAPITAL COMMISSION ACT-RENTAL OF SPACE
Mr. Isabelle: How much space, in square feet, does the federal government rent for office or other purposes within (a) Ontario (b) Quebec comprising the region described by the National Capital Commission Act?
Return tabled.


PAYMENT BY FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO QUEBEC 1968-69
Mr. Lambert (Belle-chasse): What amount was paid by the federal government to the Government of Quebec during the fiscal period 1968-69 for (a) social assistance (b) any kind of pension for which the costs are shared between Ottawa and Quebec (c) construction of schools (d) construction of the Trans-Canada Highway (e) crop insurance?
Return tabled.


UNEMPLOYMENT IN CANADA 1967-69
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	What was the number of unemployed in each province in Canada in May, June, July, August of 1967, 1968, 1969?
2.	What was the number of High School and University students unemployed in each province in Canada in May, June, July, August of 1967, 1968 and 1969?
Return tabled.


INCENTIVE GRANT TO ABITIBI PAPER CO. LTD.
Mr. Burton: 1.	Has the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, under the Regional Incentives Act, authorized or provided an incentive grant to Abitibi Paper Co. Ltd., Toronto, Ontario and, if so, what is the amount of the grant?
2.	What is the total estimated cost of the project for which the grant was provided and what is the nature of the project and its location?


Auditor General
3.	Who are the directors and chief executive officers of Abitibi Paper Co. Ltd. and what is the address of each?
4.	To what extent is this company non-resident or foreign-owned or controlled?
5.	What is the name and country of the known non-resident ownership in this company?
Return tabled.


Mr. Burton:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make an inquiry about question No. 827 which was placed on the Order Paper on January 12 and concerns the Canada Grains Council. I would ask whether inquiries could be made about this question.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will inquire in that regard. With regard to the earlier submission, may I point out that over 75 per cent of the questions asked this session have already been answered, including 57 today.


Mr. Broadbent:: Mr. Speaker, with regard to what the House Leader has just said, I should like to point out that questions 162 to 172 standing in my name have been on the Order Paper since the beginning of the session on October 23. This is almost a period of six months. The questions pertain to a very important matter, namely, the degree of involvement of foreign firms in business activities in this country. At various times in the past month I have been promised that the answers would be forthcoming, and I should like the House Leader to give me some assurance as to when the answers can be expected.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, considering the imprecision in the way that the questions have been drawn obtaining replies has taken a great deal of time. It is difficult to inquire into the control of over 800 firms in Canada. However, I will get the replies as quickly as I can.



MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER S.O. 26 AUDITOR GENERAL STATEMENTS BY GOVERNMENT MEMBERS CONCERNING ACTIVITIES

Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave, pursuant to Standing Order 26, to move the adjournment of the House to discuss a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely, the unprecedented challenge to the Auditor General, a servant of this House and

Parliament, involved in the question asked by the hon. member for Sarnia of the President of the Privy Council as recorded in Hansard on March 25, and the subsequent statement made outside the House by the President of the Privy Council, which are critical of the Auditor General in the performance of his duty and which followed almost immediately on the tabling in this House by the Minister of Finance of the Auditor General's report for 1968-69, volume I. In particular, a statement by the President of the Privy Council suggests that he and certain of his colleagues have tried, condemned and found guilty the Auditor General by star chamber tactics that are repugnant to Canadians.
The urgency of the situation and of debate lies in the fact that this challenge to the office of the Auditor General must impair his usefulness and encourage government officials to disregard his views, and this House provides the only forum to discuss the question.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Peace River has proposed the adjournment of the House to discuss what the hon. member describes as "the unprecedented challenge to the Auditor General" by the government.
The Chair agrees with the hon. member that the relations between the Auditor General and the government and Parliament constitute a very serious and important matter indeed. The question is not whether this situation should be debated by hon. members in due course, but whether this House should be adjourned for the purpose of considering the matter later today.
As the hon. member well knows, in making its decision the Chair is required by the Standing Orders to take into account the possibility that the matter may be discussed in the House by other means at an early date. There are long-standing precedents to indicate that an immediately pending or continuing budget debate is deemed to provide the type of opportunity envisioned by the Standing Order. The current budget debate has not yet been completed and there are still at the disposal of hon. members two of the six days provided by the rules. I understood the President of the Privy Council to indicate earlier this afternoon that these days would be called on Wednesday and Thursday of this week, at which time the situation alluded to by the hon. member for Peace River might well be considered by the House.
In the circumstances, I must conclude that the hon. member's proposed motion cannot be put to the House at this time under the terms of Standing Order 26.
April 6, 1970	COMMONS



POST OFFICE


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave, seconded by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent), to move the adjournment of the House under Standing Order 26 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely, the government's mishandling of the Montreal postal situation and the need for Parliament to consider alternative courses of action.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands has given notice pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 26 of his intention to request leave to move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing the Montreal postal situation. I am sure the hon. member and all hon. members would agree that the comments I have just made in relation to the motion proposed by the hon. member for Peace River might, to some extent at least, be applicable to the situation raised by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands. However, there are additional considerations which should be referred to at this time.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
In deciding whether or not leave should be granted, the Chair must take into consideration also the limitations placed on that procedure by the terms of Standing Order 26. Hon. members may recall that as long ago as February 18 last the hon. member for Peace River requested and was granted leave to move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing the crippled mail service in Montreal. It seems to me the proposal now being submitted by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands is in essence the same continuing question. In this regard subsection (d) of section 16 of Standing Order 26 reads as follows:
the motion must not revive discussion on a matter which has been discussed in the same session pursuant to the provisions of this Standing Order;
In other words, it has long been established that there can be only one emergency debate during the course of a session on one subject. I realize full well that because there has been debate on a general subject it is difficult to determine whether or not there are different aspects of the question which might not militate in favour of having a second debate
DEBATES	5509
Inquiries of the Ministry which would not be precisely on the same terms as the one previously. But I would think the circumstances would be very rare in which the Chair should place itself and the House in the position of having a second emergency debate and a second discussion of a situation which essentially has been considered by the House under the terms of Standing Order 26.
The decision has caused me some difficulty and some anguish, but in view of the rather specific provisions of subsection (d) of section 16 of Standing Order 26 I think the motion cannot and should not be put at this time.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Labour, who I believe is in cool waters, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister regarding the Montreal postal troubles. Can the Prime Minister advise if the government has made any further changes of policy so as to do more toward protecting the employment rights of the G. H. Lapalme workers who formerly carried the mail?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the position of the government remains the same. The Goldenberg report is accepted and is being and will be implemented by the government. There are of course, matters which have been discussed between the leaders of the CNTU and the President of the Treasury Board regarding the ways in which it should be implemented, but the fundamental position of the government remains the same.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is it the view of the Prime Minister and the government that these steps meet what Commissioner Goldenberg called the government's moral obligation to seek to protect the employment of these men?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker. As has been made known to the public, the position of the government is that in so far as a number of men would be required to continue the service of delivery of mail by truck these men would be given preference in respect of being hired by the public service for the pur-


Inquiries of the Ministry suance of this service. We are concerned with making sure that the men who have worked in these positions in the past would be given the choice of continuing to work in these positions in the future, with all the added security and other advantages which accrue from working in the public service.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, in taking the decision to have the trucking of postal material in Montreal carried out by the government, may I ask the Prime Minister whether the government gave the employees any assurance, first of all, of job security and of retaining the same rates of pay and retaining their security rights? Were these assurances given to the employees, or does the government intend to give such assurances to the employees?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the government has given many assurances to the representatives of the employees. These will be made public in due course, but as is proper in the field of labour negotiations the dealings have been between the President of the Treasury Board and the duly chosen representatives of this particular union. We are still hopeful that the men will get the total message the government wants to convey to them, but we are still determined to communicate through the official representatives of the union. For that reason I do not think it is useful at this point to go into the details of the offer made by the President of the Treasury Board.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the public has a right to know why the employees to date have been refusing to accept the government's offer, may I ask the Prime Minister if the government is offering these workers considerably lower rates of pay than they have been enjoying up until now?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member that the public has a right to know, but I am sure that if the government had taken the position of not dealing with the representatives of the union and had talked directly over their heads to the men and the public he would be the first to condemn us.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister whether the government intends to continue with its policy of having the trucking done by the government itself or does it

intend to revert, as has been reported, to making contracts with various firms and including some stipulation in those contracts in respect of wage security and seniority?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: In answer to the first question, Mr. Speaker, I indicated it was the intention of the government to implement the terms of the Goldenberg report. This means inviting the former employees of Lapalme to enter the civil service and work as civil servants in the jobs they previously occupied.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister.
In view of the confusion now prevailing with respect to the post office, would the Prime Minister look into the opportunity or the possibility of granting the mail delivery contract for Montreal to Mr. Michel Char-trand, for instance, just to see if he could do better than everybody in dealing with the employees?


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. In view of what the Prime Minister just said about going over the heads of the official negotiators of the union and the inappropriateness of such action, would he consider reprimanding the Postmaster General for doing precisely this in the current negotiations with the postal workers?



MONTREAL, POSTAL DISPUTE-PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION FOR CANCELLED CONTRACTS

Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Has-iings):: Mr. Speaker, is it the intention of the government to fully compensate the contractors, whose contracts were summarily cancelled on April 1, for the purchase of trucks and other necessary expenses incurred by them in order to carry out these contracts?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: As was recommended by Dr. Goldenberg, this matter has been referred to the Department of Justice and we intend as a government to discharge any obligation we may have in this regard.
April 6, 1970	COMMONS



BROADCASTING


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State. Although it is difficult to know under which department some of these organizations actually come. I am speaking of the Canadian Radio-Television Commission. I think it comes under the hon. gentleman when he is here. Today I would ask him whether it is acceptable to the government that Pierre Juneau as chairman of that commission, without a hearing and in almost a star chamber fashion, to use the words of the President of the Privy Council, should have cancelled the licence of CKPM? What is the attitude of the minister in this regard? Will he secure an explanation from Mr. Pierre Juneau in respect of his statement that he could not conceive of Mr. Stewart having the right to apply for a licence again? Surely the minister can speak out and assure us that Canadians shall not have their rights determined by any government board without a hearing.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if the right hon. member for Prince Albert has addressed a question to me. In the allegations he has just made, and I do not even admit half of them, I have not found the elements of a question. If he cares to put a question to me, I shall try to answer it.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I can understand the minister having difficulty understanding the House of Commons after holidaying for weeks-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the right hon. gentleman might ask his question.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, Mr. Speaker. My reference arose out of the challenge expressed by the minister, and I am sure he wants information. I ask him this: is it considered proper that a Canadian should have his rights determined by Pierre Juneau regardless of the fact that no opportunity has been given for a hearing and regardless of whether or not the minister approves of the statements made by this commissioner that he is going to
DEBATES	5511
Inquiries of the Ministry act as he will, with no regard for Canadian feeling?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I said I do not admit the allegations made by the right hon. member for Prince Albert. They are inadmissible because they do not represent the truth, the reality or the facts. Therefore, I cannot agree with the conclusions that the hon. member draws himself from false assertions.


John George Diefenbaker: Evasion like that may be all right in newspaper offices but this is Parliament. I ask the minister: will he get in touch with this dictator, Juneau, and find out the facts?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Pelleiier:: Mr. Speaker, first I think that the CRTC is not Mr. Pierre Juneau. It is the whole Canadian Radio-Television Commission and if the right hon. member for Prince Albert has doubts on this matter, I should advise him to read the Broadcasting Act. If my memory serves me right, he was not in this House when the legislation was passed.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Of course I will recognize the right hon. gentleman on a question of privilege but I trust we will be given an opportunity to go on to the next subject at an early date.


John George Diefenbaker: My question of privilege is this: who is this minister who dares to treat Parliament so insolently? Questions are asked but he laughs at Parliament, and that is what he has done all along.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Has the hon. member for Annapolis Valley a supplementary question?


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: I welcome back the Secretary of State from his external affairs tour. My supplementary question is: would he check with the chairman of the CRTC and make a statement to the House, hopefully tomorrow or whenever he is going to be in the House next, to amplify


Inquiries of the Ministry the reasons given by the CRTC in its press statement of March 25 saying that the ownership and control of the licensee company has not been clarified to the satisfaction of the commission, and would he point out in particular in what way these points have not been clarified by the licensee company?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I should be very happy to contact the Canadian RadioTelevision Commission in order to ask whether additional explanations may be supplied to the hon. member who has just asked a question.
As regards the question put by the right hon. member for Prince Albert, that is to say who I am, I refer him to the Parliamentary Guide where he will find useful information about me.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister will hear about this. He is the most arrogant and insolent minister in Parliament. He is never here at all, he is always somewhere else.



FISHERIES


Mr. Thomas S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might be permitted to change the subject and address a question to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. The question concerns the salmon licencing arrangements, with particular reference to the Indian people in British Columbia. Arising out of the answer given to me by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development on March 25, may I ask whether the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has met with him since March 25, and have the two ministers reached a solution in regard to ensuring that the Indian people of British Columbia are not squeezed out of the salmon fishery?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am not sure that the first part of the question is in order. The minister might like to reply to the last part.


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, I have been in close consultation with the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development for some time regarding the problem faced by Indian fishermen in British Columbia being able to raise the amount of money necessary to pay 
their fees in the commercial salmon fishery in 1970.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Can the minister tell me whether all Indian fishermen have been able to raise the fees and to qualify for permanent licencing in the salmon fishing industry in British Columbia under the agreement reached with the other minister?


John (Jack) Davis: All of the applications received so far from the native people on the west coast-and at this date they approximate half of the total-have included the full payment of the fee. We do not really see any problem. If, however, there is a problem we will meet it through the Indian fishermen's assistance program on the west coast.



WHEAT-ACREAGE REDUCTION PROGRAM-APPLICATION OF QUOTAS

Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfool):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture, but in his absence perhaps I may be permitted to direct it to the Prime Minister. First of all, I should like to point out to you, Mr. Speaker, that I have the roster before me and according to it the Minister of Agriculture is supposed to be on duty on Mondays, Tuesdays and Thursdays. In light of the concern in western Canada arising out of the wheat acreage program it is regrettable that the minister is not in the House today to answer the questions that western Canadian farmers are asking concerning this program. I will direct my question to the Prime Minister in the hope that he may be able to answer it. Arising out of the wheat acreage reduction program and the allocation of quotas based on summerfallow in the coming crop year, there is a guarantee of eight bushels per summerfallow acre of wheat allowable for delivery. Is this guarantee of eight bushels under wheat transferable to any other crop? I ask that question in all seriousness because very shortly western farmers will begin to plant their spring crops and will want to know whether or not the eight bushels are guaranteed for any crop other than wheat.


Mr. Florian Cote (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, allow me to answer this question on behalf of the Minister of Agriculture who is now in the western provinces precisely to try and settle the problems that my hon. friend finds alarm-
April 6, 1970	COMMONS
ing. When he is in the House, he is blamed for not solving problems.
I will bring this question to the minister's attention, Mr. Speaker.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In light of the fact that according to the roster the Minister of Agriculture is to be present in the House tomorrow, perhaps his Parliamentary Secretary could bring these questions to the minister's attention so that he can answer them tomorrow. The supplementary question is if in fact the eight bushel quota guarantee is not transferable, assuming that the surplus wheat is in the hands of a third of the farmers, then is the government in fact not guaranteeing to two-thirds of the farmers who have not a surplus of wheat that if they plant wheat this spring they will be given an eight bushel quota, and will this in fact not encourage them to plant wheat this spring?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. My understanding is that the hon. member has invited the Parliamentary Secretary to take note of the supplementary question and bring it to the attention of the minister.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I have one more supplementary question which I think I should put at this time.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest that perhaps it should be as brief as possible because the first two questions were rather lengthy.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I am sure that if Your Honour checks back over the record you will find that I have been very brief in the question period in particular.
In light of the fact that the Minister of Agriculture, according to the roster system, is supposed to be in the House tomorrow, perhaps his Parliamentary Secretary might take this question also as notice.
Further, in light of the fact that the Minister of Agriculture knows the eastern irrigation district very well because he used to represent it, I would like to ask him this question and through you, Mr. Speaker, or his Parliamentary Assistant perhaps reach him: are he and his department considering additional moneys for summerfallow in the irrigation area because of the tremendous cost involved in summerfallowing land, particularly in the eastern irrigation district, and will additional consideration be given to this under the wheat acreage reduction program- 22218-3
DEBATES	5513
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: -because I might add-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has had the floor for a considerable time. Now he is asking supplementaries. Perhaps he will take it for granted that the minister will answer.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I only hope he is here tomorrow.



FINANCE


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister.
In view of the disagreement between the Quebec government and the central government in connection with the $200 million deemed to have been collected in the province of Quebec under the social development tax, is the Quebec government making representations to or having talks with the federal authorities about the refund of those 200 millions?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that there is at the present time any exchange of views between the two levels of government. Some time ago, the premier of Quebec, or the provincial Minister of Finance, wrote to the federal Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) in that respect. I perused the answer prepared by the federal Minister of Finance, and that letter must have already been received by the Quebec minister. As for us, the matter has been settled for a long time and I think that the citizens of the province of Quebec will be pleased when, as soon as possible, the provincial government implements the medicare system.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question.
In connection with this quibbling, as it could be called, has the Prime Minister or the government been advised by Mr. Mario Beaulieu that the province will separate from Canada in 1974, if Ottawa does not accede to the claims of Quebec?


Inquiries of the Ministry



POLLUTION


Mr. Jack Cullen (Sarnia):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. Following discussion and negotiation with the government of the province of Ontario I am wondering if his department will undertake to compensate those who will not qualify for unemployment insurance but will suffer a loss of income because of fish being poisoned by mercury? Will the department supplement their incomes to the level they would have earned except for the government's ban?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, a program of that kind is under consideration. I might mention that I am meeting tomorrow with the Minister of Lands and Forests and the Minister of Energy and Resources Management of Ontario about this particular problem.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Would the minister consider making a statement on motions so that the fishermen in this particular area, and I am thinking also of the fishermen in the Lake Huron area, will know exactly where they stand and whether or not they should fish this year?


John (Jack) Davis: I hope we can make a statement soon, Mr. Speaker. I expect that the fishermen in that area would get the same treatment, or treatment equivalent to that received by fishermen in Newfoundland last year when they were faced with a similar situation.


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Would the minister make a brief statement in reply to my question now, or on motions tomorrow, and clarify the situation as to whether these fish in Lake St. Clair and Lake Erie are poisonous or not? There are conflicting reports, Mr. Speaker, and no one wants to buy the fish. One day they are declared to be poisoned, and the next day they are declared not to be poisoned. Could the minister clarify the situation?


John (Jack) Davis: Perhaps I could say quite simply that the pickerel in Lake St. Clair do present a problem. Those from the extreme western end of Lake Erie are close to the very safe international standard of .5 parts per million. Those in the rest of Lake Erie, and that is the

great bulk of the Lake Erie perch fishery, are comparatively low in mercury, but we want to be sure, as a result of a long series of tests, that all our fish are safe from the consumers point of view.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry on this subject. Could he tell us now, or in the statement on motions which was suggested, whether any steps are under way to ensure that the people responsible for creating the mercury pollution in these lakes will be paying some of the compensation required by the fishermen because of the loss of their fish catch?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, this is one of the topics for discussion with the Ontario ministers tomorrow.


Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister confirming that no fish with any dangerous level of mercury in them have been found in Lake Huron?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, we have no definite indication of a problem in Lake Huron. Tests, however, are being carried out in respect of all fish in the Great Lakes area.



SASKATCHEWAN RIVER-MERCURY CONTAMINATION OF FISH-PRECAUTIONS TO SAFEGUARD PUBLIC

Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister a supplementary question with regard to mercury pollution in the Saskatchewan River caused by the co-op plant in Saskatoon. Are adequate precautions being taken to safeguard the public? I do not necessarily mean the commercial fishermen but others who may be involved in sports fishing, and Indians who may rely on fishing for their livelihood?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, the situation on the Saskatchewan River is that the pollution from the plant was stopped within 48 hours of the determination of the source of the pollution, namely, the co-op plant downstream from Saskatoon. The situation is different on the prairies in that our Crown-owned Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation has been buying all the commercial catch from the Saskatchewan River system.


Stanley James Korchinski: Just for clarification, Mr. Speaker, may I say I understand the situation with respect to the commercial fishermen, but what I am concerned about at this time is that the public be adequately warned of the danger of eating these fish. I refer in particular to Indians and to sports fishermen who may be using the fish from these contaminated waters?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, I have no hesitation in saying that we have been working with the Indian Affairs Department and with the provincial departments concerned with this matter for a period now of five or six months, and I am sure that anyone who is engaged in that fishery, knows of the dangers involved.



UPGRADING OF RESEARCH AND CONTROL PROCEDURES

Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingaie):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Fisheries. In view of the fact that the type of pollution encountered in western Canada, central Canada and eastern Canada seems to be a recurring problem, is the minister giving any consideration to upgrading the research and control procedures within the department in order to short-circuit much of the contamination and pollution and thus eliminate much of the cost involved?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, this is not a recurring problem. We have identified the 12 possible sources of mercury pollution in Canada. We think we have now found the principal ones, and all of the companies concerned are taking remedial action. This will eliminate the sources of mercury, and natural flushing out of the river systems will eliminate the problem within the next year or two.



PENITENTIARIES


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Solicitor General whether an investigative study was carried out into suicides in federal prisons, as alleged by Dr. Bruno Cormier of McGill University, and whether corrective steps will be carried out as a result of this study?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated on the last day that the House sat before the Easter recess,
22218-3J

Inquiries of the Ministry we are very much concerned about this problem. We are now conducting an investigative study within the department with a view to determining what kind of further investigation should be carried out to get to the root of the problem. As I indicated in my answer on that occasion, we are very much concerned about the matter and are determined to get to the root of the problem.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Resources or his Parliamentary Secretary. Would the minister undertake to obtain and table in the House a transcript of the proceedings at the public meeting held in northern Quebec between representatives of the government of Canada and of the government of Quebec and the native people, when the native people indicated they were unhappy 'about the proposals made to them and that they in turn may make a claim to the lands in that part of the country which have never been the subject of any treaty?


Mr. Russell C. Honey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I understand there were a series of meetings. If my hon. friend is referring-


Gerald William Baldwin: The one on February 19.


Russell Clayton Honey: In any event, Mr. Speaker, I will relay his request to the minister who will advise him.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

Mr. Andre Ouellet (Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, millions of hockey fans throughout Canada, more particularly the supporters of the Montreal Canadiens, have apparently been cheated yesterday afternoon during a game between the Detroit Red Wings and the New York Rangers.
I should like to ask the Minister of Justice whether he could urge the president of the National Hockey League to investigate the circumstances surrounding yesterday's defeat of the Detroit team in New York?


Inquiries of the Ministry



CRIMINAL CODE


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. In view of the minister's intended reference to the Supreme Court of Canada of the breathalyzer provisions concerning impaired driving, is it his intention to contact the Attorneys General of the different provinces across Canada to obtain uniformity of practice with regard to impending charges and charges where convictions have been registered and the driving licences of the people concerned have been suspended?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, of course the decision as to how the breathalyzer provisions will continue to be enforced across Canada is one for the several provincial Attorneys General, but I shall take into consideration the proposition made by the hon. member.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the President of the Privy Council. In view of the problems created by this excessive use of executive power, would the minister arrange to bring forward for discussion and decision at an early date the recommendations of the committee on statutory instruments which contain precautions against the kind of impropriety we have recently seen?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me the hon. member may misunderstand the situation. This situation has been very adequately protected by the courts.



FISHERIES


Mr. James A. McGralh (Sf. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries. In view of the fact that the legislation setting up the Canadian Saltfish Corporation received royal assent on March 25, and particularly in view of a telegram sent by the minister to the exporters asking them to desist from further exporting activities, is the minister now in a position to state when the president and chairman of the Canadian Saltfish Development Corporation will be appointed? The delay is hurting our marketing activities for the current season.
[Mr. Ouellet.l


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I can assure the hon. member that work is proceeding and there are no delays. The appointments will be made, in the case of the chairman hopefully by this weekend, and in the case of the president by mid-month.



CRIMINAL CODE


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: I have a question for the Minister of Justice, Mr. Speaker. In order to avoid further delay or confusion with regard to the breathalyzer law, is the government considering proclaiming all the breathalyzer provisions so that they may be in effect from now on, whatever the past situation may have been?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I think the matter is properly before the courts and I should let it run its course before deciding what future course to recommend to the government. I intend to await the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada.



BREATHALYZER PROVISIONS-SUPPLYING OF NECESSARY SCIENTIFIC EQUIPMENT

['That is a good idea.\n[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)']
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Minister of Justice could tell us at this stage whether there have been any negotiations or arrangements made with any organization or corporation in this country for supplying the necessary scientific equipment as set out in the bill passed by Parliament?


John Napier Turner: Yes, Mr. Speaker. As I stated on an earlier occasion, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police have been analysing all the applications for approval of sample breathalyzer equipment and are still doing so. To date they have not found themselves able to certify any particular make of equipment.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, that practically answers the question I had in mind except to ask if the minister can state whether any container has been developed that will assure the protection and preservation of the rights of the accused as contemplated under the act?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, a lot of containers have been manufac-
April 6, 1970	COMMONS
tured but as yet none has received the approval of the authorities in Canada. That is to say, so far no container is sufficiently foolproof to justify its use under the criminal statute.


John George Diefenbaker: The bill was brought in before it should have been.



Mr. Robert Borrie (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is related to an answer given previously by the right hon. Prime Minister. Will the Ste. Scholastique airport and a number of other federal projects scheduled for Quebec be delayed while assessment is made of the apparent statements in favour of separatism by two political parties seeking election in that province?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, federal policies are designed for the advantage of all citizens of Canada. If we were to suspend their completion every time some petty provincial politician from any province threatened separatism we would get nowhere.


INFORMATION CANADA
John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister without Portfolio who speaks for Information Canada in the House. I should like to ask if the minister, who was not in the House for a few days before we recessed for Easter, consulted with the director of Information Canada before intervening personally to change the Canadian Press story reporting partisan influences in Information Canada?


Hon. Robert Stanbury (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member does not do justice to the Canadian Press. I have no means of changing any story of theirs. When questioned I simply gave my side of the story and they were kind enough to include that which had not been included before. The director had not yet been appointed at that time.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, the minister came to my question in the last part of his
DEBATES	5517
Inquiries of the Ministry answer. My question was, did he consult before he amplified his position to the Canadian Press. I should like to know if it
was before or after.


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: I have just said, Mr. Speaker, that I did not consult. There was no director at the time and I have not consulted with him since about my statement.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. This is a rather important matter which has not come before Parliament in the proper way. In view of the serious threat to accurate reporting posed by the appearance of partisanship in Information Canada, will the minister use his good offices with the chairman of the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts to have the director of Information Canada, Mr. Gagnon, appear before that committee to define his terms of reference and to explain some of his past partisan political activities?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Good question.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is rising on a point of order.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to take the time of the House today but the minister was not in the House for several days before we rose, even though he was on the roster. Certain things happened in regard to Information Canada which caused a great deal of gloom and left a cloud over it. I thought the minister was about to rise to answer this question because the whole matter has not come before Parliament. It has been slipped in as an estimate of $7 million at a time when this government is chopping expenditures, everywhere.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is addressed to the Minister without Portfolio responsible for Information Canada. Would the minister instruct the director of Information Canada, as one of his first duties, to use his influence to have the minister answer the questions on the Order Paper?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
5518	COMMONS DEBATES	April 6, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State. Would the minister demand from the president of the CBC an explanation for the terrible mistake in programming which occurred last night when The Forsyte Saga, a good program, was actually scheduled in prime viewing time?


BILINGUALISM AND BICULTURALISM
Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Parliamentary Secre-lary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the right hon. Prime Minister. Has the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism ceased functioning, and when does the Prime Minister expect to receive any final reports, including one dealing with the role of cultural or ethnic groups other than English and French, in accordance with the terms of reference?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I can only answer in general terms. Some months ago I did meet the cochairmen of the Royal Commission who told me that they could finish their work by March 31 but that there may be some problems of printing or editing thereafter. I believe their main task on the substance of the report was finished by March 31 and that the subject referred to by the hon. member has been dealt with. At what precise moment it will be printed I cannot say, but it will Obviously be very soon.


POLICY FOLLOWING THIRD REPORT OF COMMISSION
John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Prime Minister can tell the House and the country if the government has made up its mind yet on the third report of the B and B Commission?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. When can the House and the country expect a policy statement on that portion of the B and B work?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, there is a lot of implementation to be proceeded with on the 
other portions of the B and B report and we still need some time ahead of us before implementing every part of the reports.


INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY
Mr. Rod Thomson (Bailleford-Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Justice. In view of the fact a Spence Bay Eskimo has been charged with bear hunting on the ice off the Northwest Territories, will the minister say if he thinks Jimmy Tootalik will come out of his trial with a "bare" skin?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


FISHERIES
Mr. Louis-Roland Comeau (South Western Nova):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. Has the minister received resolutions from the legislative assemblies of the Maritimes asking that the fund designated or known as the fishermen's bounty be distributed to the provinces? Also, has he plans to accede to this request?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen any such representation. If it has, in fact, been made I will consider it, even though it be ill advised.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. When does he expect to sign the agreements with the provinces of New Brunswick and Newfoundland in connection with the special areas program he announced on March 15? In anticipation of the minister's answer, will he define "soon" for us?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: For all practical purposes, Mr. Speaker, the negotiations with New Brunswick are complete. Only formalities have to be approved. As to Newfoundland, the matter should be settled soon.


FISHERIES
Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. Will the minister make a statement to the House at the earliest opportunity on the question of seal hunting? Pictures recently shown on television indicated that the law was being broken. Could the minister and his officials find out whether the pictures shown by the CBC were accurate representations, or fraudulent as has been suggested?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly give consideration to that submission. I may also mention that our mail in respect of seals is down substantially this year.


George Harris Hees: That is not because people are not writing.


ACTION ON SIXTH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE, MAY 9, 1969
John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Justice. Has the minister's department taken action on the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry of May 9 last? If not, when may we expect some action on the report?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the last time I replied to that question I said to the hon. member in the House that one of the witnesses was in Australia. We are having some trouble finding him.


James Aloysius McGrath: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister consider sending the hon. member for Gander-Twillin-gate to Australia? He might have some luck in finding him.


John Napier Turner: That is a good idea.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-3, to amend the Criminal Code, as
Hate Propaganda
reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Mr. Douglas A. Hogarth (New Westminster) moved:: That BUI C-3, an Act to amend the Criminal Code, be amended by inserting the word Publicly" after the words "Everyone who' m line 6 on page 1.


Mr. Speaker:: It is my understanding from the advice I have received that the words referred to are on line 7 of the bill as reprinted, as opposed to being on line 6 of the original bill. I assume that hon. members would want the proposed amendment to be moved in those terms. Is that agreed?
Sone hon. Members: Agreed.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker; since I want to move several amendments to the bill it will be necessary to change the wording of my proposed amendments in the way Your Honour suggested just now with respect to the amendment of the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Hogarth). We did not receive copies of the new bill in our offices until this morning, I am talking of the amended bill which has been before the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. As a result, we have had to rely on the old bill in drafting our amendments. I would ask that there be added to my proposed amendment the words ' lines 1 to 9, on page 5 thereof". Otherwise, the amendment would read improperly.
While I am on my feet may I draw something to Your Honour's attention? Since these matters are now considered by a standing committee of the House of Commons instead of by a committee of the whole House, we are experiencing some problems in placing our amendments on the Order Paper in good time. I say that because amendments placed on the Order Paper have to be drafted before the reprinted bill is printed, and I ask for some direction from the Chair in this regard. It was impossible to draft proper amendments which are to be presented in this important debate touching on the freedom of speech.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, may I speak to the point of order? It is my understanding of the circumstances here that there was no obligation to submit a bill as reprinted. It was really for the convenience of the House that the reprinted version was circulated. On this basis, I do not think any hon. member should be prejudiced by reason of the revised version. The reprinted version


Hate Propaganda
was circulated out of our motivation to be helpful. Since that is why the reprinted version was circulated, there is no reason for not modifying the amendments.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, with the greatest respect, I trust the government house leader can see the problem.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I can, indeed.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: If many amendments have been suggested in the standing committee where the bill has been considered, then surely, if these amendments are to be logically and intelligently considered, copies of the bill should come before the House in good time.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, speaking to the same point of order, may I say that I have not yet received the helpfully amended bill. I wonder where it is.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. My understanding is that it should be in the hon. member's file. An additional copy will be sent to the hon. member immediately. I suggest the point raised by the hon. member is well taken. It complicates the work of hon. members when a bill which has been substantially amended is not distributed until the time when the bill is to be debated. I am advised that this bill was actually reprinted some days ago and it is difficult for the Chair to understand why it was not distributed earlier. My suggestion would be that perhaps the general policy should be established that any bill which is amended at the committee stage should be automatically reprinted so that it will be much easier for hon. members to consider the amendments when the bill comes before the House at the report stage and so that they know to which amendments reference is being made. If this procedure were adopted as a matter of policy by our committees, then there would not be the difficulty with which we are confronted today.
The point made by hon. members is worth considering and I will consult with the committee branch, with the clerk and the table officers, to see whether we can prevent a recurrence of this difficulty.


Douglas Aird Hogarth: Mr. Speaker, just so that there is no misunderstanding with respect to what has been agreed, and certainly I agree with the sentiments expressed by my hon. friend, the relevant wording in the first para-
[Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale) .1
graph as amended would read, "Everyone who publicly advocates or promotes genocide is guilty of an indictable offence. .. ".
This bill has been before Parliament and the Senate on a good number of occasions, so to speak. It has been debated in the Senate and in the House and has received a very thorough going over before the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. I think all of us are gravely concerned about the bill because it deals with one of the very fundamental things with which we in a democratic society are concerned, the right of our freedom of expression. It is regrettable, in a sense, that such legislation is even necessary in Canada today.
As the bill stands, it creates three substantive offences. The first of those is the one I have just mentioned and is contained in paragraph 267A. That provides that anyone who advocates genocide is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for five years. The second offence deals with a breach of the peace resulting from someone inciting hatred against a minority group in a public place, and the third offence is the one which deals with wilfully promoting hatred in other than private conversations.
The penalties with respect to the three offences should be very carefully considered. First, the penalty dealing with the advocacy or promotion of genocide is up to five years imprisonment. It is to be specifically noted that this offence is solely an indictable one. The second offence, making statements with respect to hatred toward minority groups, is indictable and punishable by only two years imprisonment, or if the Crown so chooses, it can proceed by summary conviction in which case the penalty is much less. The maximum in that case is six months or a $500 fine. The third offence created in this bill is one of willfully promoting hatred. Similarly, the Crown can proceed by indictment or summary conviction. The maximum penalty when proceeding by indictment is two years. Should the Crown prefer to proceed by way of summary conviction, the same provisions apply as to the second offence.
There is a distinct difference between the first, second and third offences. Where statements are related to the second and third offences, private conversations are excluded. There can be no prosecution for the second and third offences unless the advocacy of hatred takes place in a public place or other than in a private conversation. My concern is that in the first instance, where a person


advocates genocide, which I agree is a terribly reprehensible thing to do, that person can be guilty of the offence no matter when, where or under what circumstances it took place, even in the privacy of his own home in the presence of two people. If he advocates or promotes genocide, he will be guilty of an offence and liable to imprisonment of up to five years. There is no option of the summary conviction proceedings which appear with respect to the other two offences.
As far as I am concerned, people who make statements in public that incite hatred against ethnic groups which bring about breaches of the peace, or people who wilfully promote hatred in public or advocate genocide in public, should definitely be held accountable in the criminal courts. I agree that these should be offences, but I cannot see why the genocide provisions should be singled out as being so much more reprehensible than the other two offences.
It could be said that the concept of genocide carries with it a greater degree of culpability because it relates to the destruction of the whole ethnic group or puts that group into a situation where its physical destruction is inevitable. In contrast with that, who in Canada today is going to take the advocacy of such a proposition seriously? In addition, it is extremely unlikely that a person who makes statements of this nature, even in the privacy of his own home or in the privacy of another person's home, is going to be taken seriously and is going to do the public any serious harm.
I suggest there is no real need for the criminal law to so restrict our freedom of speech that it will be an offence punishable by five years' imprisonment when somebody in the heat of an argument, possibly after a few drinks and perhaps a little obsessed, makes such a reprehensible a statement as the advocacy of genocide. Nobody is going to take such a statement seriously. As far as I can see, such instances would occur so rarely that they would hardly be worthy of any consideration from the point of view of the criminal law.
I admit such contentions, if they are put forward publicly, should be offences. I say that because the essence of the criminal law is to prevent harm and maintain social order. If statements of this nature are made in public, it is obvious the person intends that the public react to them and that he intends to promote what he has said. I cannot see how
Hate Propaganda
it can be so terribly reprehensible if such statements are made in a heated debate during a private conversation.
Certain members of the committee criticized the suggestions I am putting forward. It was said in committee that the concept of genocide is so reprehensible in any context whatever that it has absolutely no redeeming social value and it should not be permitted to be advocated by anyone under any circumstances. I agree with the point of view that it has absolutely no redeeming social value. There is no one in this chamber who would disagree with that point of view, but is that the criterion by which we are to establish criminal law? Is it because it has no redeeming social value that we should make it an offence? The only time it should be made an offence is when there is a clear and present danger to an ethnic group or any one or more members of the public.
I do not agree with the contention that the criminal law should be used to educate the public. The criminal law should be used to protect the public from harm where there is a clear and present danger that such harm exists or might come about. The basis of this bill is the report of the Special Committee on Hate Propaganda in Canada. Certain eminent members of this House were members of that committee. I do not think that they ever intended that the advocacy of genocide should be made an offence when it occurs in a private conversation. It is stated at page 62 of the report that:
It would be an emphatic public declaration of our total commitment to the elimination of this most inhuman manifestation of prejudice and a reassurance to any minority groups in our midst that-
These are the important words:
-promoting such a concept in public discussion is beyond the pale. At the same time it would be one more potent instrument in the education of the people of Canada as to the awful consequences of racism and prejudice.
At page 63 the report reads:
There is, therefore, no ambiguity and no begging of the question in the stand we take namely, that any form of advocacy or promotion of genocide is outside the bounds of legitimate public discussion.
Even though in the final recommendations of the committee they do not distinguish between private and public conversations, it is my contention that the committee was clearly concerned with the advocacy of genocide in public, and the prevention of the harm that could possibly accrue if such a course were followed among the people of our community.


Hate Propaganda
There is a suggestion that we are bound to our international commitments resulting from the declarations which were made in the United Nations. However, it seems to me that we never went so far in those commitments that we would prohibit a private comment made by an individual who might choose to advocate genocide for some ridiculous purpose which he had in mind. In those commitments and in others found in appendix V of the report, we undertook that we would pass laws against genocide; conspiracy to commit genocide; direct and public incitement to commit genocide; attempt to commit genocide and complicity in genocide. At no point in our international commitments did we undertake to make private conversations of this nature a criminal offence. My question is, how far do we have to go to protect the public? It must be admitted that in this particular situation we are treading upon the dangerous ground of restricting freedom of expression.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
I submit there is no need to go as far as this to protect ethnic groups from the type of literature, the type of communication, which is deemed to be offensive under the legislation before us. If there were forces at work in Canada today which advocated, as part of a political philosophy, the death or destruction of any particular minority, my view would be different. But I do not believe anyone can point to the existence of a political movement in Canada today Which seeks the destruction of any of our ethnic minorities.
It is true the clause with which we are dealing contains a provision to the effect that no prosecution can be undertaken without the consent of the attorney general of one or other of the provinces. This does not mean, however, that a person making a statement of the kind described is not committing a crime. A statement, though made in private, might constitute a crime; the provision to which I refer merely means that it is open to the attorney general to decide whether or not to prosecute. In constituting a crime which can be committed by persons who might be taking part in a private conversation, we are opening the door to those who might bring accusations that such offences took place; we are opening the door to extortion.
I cannot believe there is a single ethnic group in this country today, as defined in the legislation before us, which feels we ought to go as far as this for its protection. No one can deny that on occasion it is necessary for the

criminal law to trespass on our individual right of freedom of speech and communication. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) has made this clear. Few people realize the extent to which our freedom of speech is limited at the present time by the laws of defamatory libel and slander. I suggest that in this clause on genocide we have gone too far. We are not moving to protect the Canadian people. What we are doing here is passing criminal legislation which is politically motivated to get political support from ethnic groups.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Douglas Aird Hogarth: I do not believe this principle is a sound basis upon which the criminal law should be established. The criminal law should be established to protect the public, not to satisfy demands from any particular group within the public.
In seeking support for my amendment, I think it is only fair to advise hon. members that it was defeated in committee. Nevertheless, I seek their support because I think we have gone too far. There are real fears on the part of the Canadian public that we have gone too far in establishing this overall concept. If we were to make it clear that these provisions will not apply to things done privately, I believe the bill would prove far more palatable to the many critics who have written to us about it.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask the hon. member why he has not followed the example of the committee by suggesting an amendment which would exclude statements made in private conversations and in private homes, instead of opening the field so widely by using the word "public"? It is difficult to define what is meant by "public". I take it that a thousand people, for instance, might organize a gathering to which the public in general would not be allowed access, and that this would constitute a private meeting. I ask the hon. member why he has not followed up his plea by proposing an amendment dealing specifically with private conversations in private homes.


Douglas Aird Hogarth: The words "other than in private conversations" were inserted, I think, by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) in an amendment; there was a great deal of difficulty in committee in determining what would constitute a private conversation. No doubt there would be equal difficulty in determining what would constitute the public advocacy of genocide. The hon. member


552$
for Sault Sainte Marie (Mr. Murphy) tried very ably to define it more accurately. As far as I am concerned, the words "other than in private conversation" have the same effect as the amendment put forward, though I do not particularly like the words "other than in private conversation". I would prefer a judge to have to determine whether a man was seriously advocating genocide or whether he was simply making a private comment.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I realize, Mr. Speaker, that we are dealing with a specific amendment, but perhaps I might be permitted to make a general comment which applies to a number of amendments as well as to the present one.
I believe that taking into account the amendments made in the committee and, perhaps, some changes which could still be made in this House, we have eliminated any ground for fear that this bill is an unreasonable or improper invasion of freedom of speech. If hon. members will permit me to be a little autobiographical, I would say that concern for freedom of speech was part of my career before I came to this House. Both as an advocate at the bar and as a promoter of organizations concerned with civil liberties, I have always considered it one of my prime duties to seek to defend the right of individuals to freedom of speech. I believe this freedom to be vital to our whole parliamentary system and to our whole democratic structure. It is against this background that I am able to give the House the assurance, as far as I can, that there is nothing in this bill which involves an undue invasion of freedom of speech or a curtailment of the fundamental rights of Canadian citizens.
There has, it is true, been some opposition to this bill but most of it, in my opinion, is based on misunderstanding. There are various sorts of amendments which might be made to the bill. Some might constitute improvements; others could be considered as wrecking amendments. Although the particular amendment before us is not intended to be a wrecking amendment, I nevertheless find it unacceptable and I intend to oppose it, not because I doubt the good faith or the good sense of the hon. member who introduced it, but because I disagree as to its necessity and efficacy.
First, the hon. member seeks to introduce into the genocide clause the concept that an offence, to be actionable, must be committed in public. What is genocide? Genocide is the murder or destruction of a race, and I say its 22218-4J
Hate Propaganda
advocacy should be prohibited whether or not it is done by subtle circulation in private circumstances or whether it is done in public. We are speaking here about the advocacy of the murder of people on the basis of their racial extraction. It is no light matter. We are obliged by international treaty to deal with it. What does "publicly" mean? A public place is one to which the public is invited, or to which it has access. If this amendment were carried, one could call people to attend private meetings in private houses, and organize a campaign of genocide there.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
I entirely approve of the amendment made by the committee to the subsequent clauses that deal with the propagation of oral statements and excludes private conversation. I think it is entirely proper that we should make it clear that the part of the bill that deals with the dissemination of hatred should not apply merely to casual conversation. But I say, to use a colloquialism, that it is a horse of an entirely different colour to talk about genocide, which is the purposeful destruction of a race.
I would point out to the hon. member that the definition of genocide clearly implies a positive intent; it does not apply to matters merely of a casual nature. I know from having had to consider the question of genocide in a different context that it is probably one of the most difficult things in the world to prove. It implies within its own definition a very clear and definite intent to destroy a race. I suggest it would not apply to any casual conversation or occurrence that took place between individuals. This is not the way one plans the destruction of a race. But it might very well be planned by means of a clandestine conspiracy that would not be public, and therefore would not be covered by the legislation. It is necessary that there be a wilful offence.
My hon. friend suggested that there was some difficulty in this connection in that there was the possibility of frivolous prosecutions being laid. I would remind him that protection against that is afforded, even in respect to the crime of genocide: the approval of the attorney general of the province concerned must be sought. I cannot conceive of a responsible official like an attorney general consenting to lay a frivolous prosecution in connection with a charge of genocide. Surely, such a grave offence would require pretty grave consideration by the attorney general before he authorized prosecution.


Hate Propaganda
May I conclude by once more making a general comment? I think that the fears to which the hon. member referred and which have been aroused among some sections of the public with regard to this bill are totally without foundation. A narrow definition is incorporated in this particular clause, and I suggest that ample defences have been erected. We are dealing with a clear and present danger, one that was found to exist by the commission that studied this matter. We are carrying out our international obligations by dealing with this question. As I have already said, while I do not feel as strongly about this amendment as I do about some others that will be coming before the House, I do suggest that the bill would be a better one without the inclusion of this particular amendment.


Mr. Eleven  Olio@York Easl: Mr. Speaker, I have heard a good deal about the dangers or supposed dangers to freedom of speech presented by the clause that provides that everyone who advocates or promotes genocide is guilty of an offence. I have also heard that this provision was instigated by the authorities because of a desire to protect ethnic groups of one sort or another. I do not believe that is true. I believe that the origin of this amendment goes back 25, 30 or 40 years. I think the recent tragic experience in world history has indicated to us that freedom of speech has to be circumscribed now to some extent.
Freedom of speech in this world-not necessarily in this country but in the world- cannot include freedom to promote or to advocate genocide. The world today has been called a global village, and one can well imagine that if freedom included, as it did over
2,000	years ago, the freedom to say that a certain race must be completely eliminated, then the problems of Canadians in Canada and the rest of the world would become insurmountable.
I do not believe the legislation is designed to protect an ethnic minority, or indeed any number of minorities, though mind you, Mr. Speaker, this is more important possibly in Canada than elsewhere in the world. But I do believe that freedom itself has to be redefined. There has been a constant hue and cry that freedom of speech is being lost. The news media would be the first to say that freedom of speech must be protected, certainly as far as they are concerned. We are proposing a bill to grant pardons to people who have criminal records but have served their time and have become good citizens. Yet

the news media are going to make their records available in perpetuity, and thus completely undo what we have done.
There has been a constant cry that freedom of speech must be maintained. The fourth estate today is much more powerful than it was. Its members now comment on the news instead of merely reporting it. Freedom of speech, freedom to hold private conservations, is no longer the sacred thing that it was at one time.
In this regard I would even disagree with the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin), who said that if the bill provided that private conversations did not contitute a criminal offence the legislation would be suitable. It would not. After all, from where does hatred stem? Does it arise on any occasion when a person, known or unknown, hires a hall or an hour on television or radio and starts to promote genocide? I suggest that the evils we have experienced over the past 30 years have found root in private conversation, in private letters, in private messages, which have developed a consensus that the thing to do was to promote hatred.
Let no one belittle or minimize the importance of protecting private conversation-yes, in a family and, as the hon. member said, in cases where a person might be slightly drunk. Let no one minimize the danger of this kind of conversation, of this kind of promotion of genocide. On such occasions as this the children hear, as do others who are influenced by the conversation, and as a result they begin to mimic and to copy.
I do not think for a moment that we are going to see any number of prosecutions. The chances are that the words "advocates or promotes" will be considered as one. The chances are that the courts will for a long time say that "advocacy" and "promotion" must be combined, and that mere conversation will not give rise to prosecution. There is the further protection that the attorney general must consent to a prosecution.
Nevertheless, if we in this House stamp with the authenticity of a national law the proposition that to advocate or promote genocide, even in private conversation, is evil, and may also subject a person to criminal prosecution, certainly the listener would be protected because he too has some rights. A person reading certain correspondence has the right not to have it sent to his house or to be told that the promotion of genocide is a course that he should adopt. We cannot minimize the importance of telling our children


and younger people that we consider genocide the greatest of evils at the present time, not only in Canada but in the world.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
I have one reservation I should like to point out to the minister. The minister knows I have always very much suspected and resented the judicial power that may be given to police officers, because the minister must agree there will be many complaints, as the hon. gentleman said, that genocide has been advocated and promoted. It is also quite reasonable to presume that for the next few years the police will not be too anxious, except when they think it is important, to prosecute. This clause gives new trouble because we are now leaving it up to the police officers to decide which information to present and upon which information to prosecute. The greater the power given to police officers the greater the danger becomes to the average citizen. However, I cannot recommend any amendment that would solve this difficulty.
I would hope that the prosecuting attorneys and also the judges will lay down a precedent in the very near future so that the question we have is given greater identification. Although I fully agree with the hon. gentleman who moved the amendment, nevertheless I repeat that there will be problems at the present time and in the present circumstances in Canada. We cannot go far enough to indicate to all Canadians that the promotion and advocacy of genocide is evil and criminal.


Douglas Aird Hogarth: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?


Mr. Otto:: Yes.


Douglas Aird Hogarth: I should like to ask why the hon. member would permit the most vicious advocacy of hatred in a home and yet would commend a provision which would make one comment concerning genocide punishable by five years' imprisonment. It is true this is an extreme situation, but a man could poison the mind of his child in the home and spend endless hours telling him about the ethnic groups he does not like. The hon. member supports this and yet would let one remark in respect of genocide bring about imprisonment for a five-year period.


Steven Otto: We have not yet come to that clause which I intend to oppose as well. I said I do not agree that the advocacy of genocide is more evil than the advocacy of hatred. I
Hate Propaganda
think one stems from the other. Yet when we come to that clause I shall be glad to discuss it.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I wish to state the proposition as briefly as I can. First of all, the government accepts the bill as it has been amended by the committee. The amendments made by the committee are those indicated by special markings in the reprint of the bill that has been circulated today.
I think this particular amendment is narrowly drawn on the issue of genocide, so I shall confine myself to discussing this. However, when the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) opens up on his amendment in wide terms I think I should like to say something about the implementation of it. I should like to say that the committee did reject the amendment now presented to the House by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Hogarth) and the government supports the position the committee took. Therefore, I would urge the House to reject the hon. member's amendment.
In meeting the hon. member's argument, I think members of the House should refresh their minds on what we are talking about when we are talking about or advocating genocide. The term "genocide" is now limited to two specific acts. That was clarified by the substitution of the word "means" for the word "includes" by the standing committee. Genocide means either of the following two acts, committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, any identifiable group; first, killing members of the group and, second, deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction. What we are talking about here is the advocacy or promotion of the killing of members of an identifiable group, a group which may be distinguished by colour, race, religion or ethnic origin, or the promotion or advocacy of deliberately inflicting on that identifiable group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction.
We are not talking simply about the advocacy of homicide but the advocacy of group homicide. We are talking about the deliberate extinction of a group of people which can be identified by their colour or their race or their religion or their ethnic origin. The government accepts the position taken by the special committee commissioned by the former Minister of Justice, the late Guy Favreau. This committee was under the chairmanship of Dean Maxwell Cohen, then


Hate Propaganda
dean of law at McGill University. We believe we are talking about so heinous a crime that its advocacy or promotion should not be condoned either in public or private. I agree with the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) that it is very difficult, in the terms in which the hon. member has drawn his amendment, to define just where he would draw the line.
Let me read from page 62 of the report of the special committee presented under the chairmanship of Dean Cohen. He is talking about advocating genocide. This is under Section 267A. The special committee reports as follows:
But because existing Canadian law already forbids most substantive aspects of genocide in that it prohibits homicide or murder vis-a-vis individuals, and because it may be undesirable to have the same acts forbidden under two different legal categories, we deem it advisable that the Canadian legislation which we urge as a symbol of our country's dedication to the rights set out in the Convention-
That has reference to the United Nations.
-should be confined to "advocating and promoting" genocide, acts which clearly are not forbidden at present by the Criminal Code.
Canadian law generally has not gone to the length of prohibiting mere intellectual advocacy of a forbidden act, but has contented itself with proscribing conduct which incites to illegal action in a present, immediate way. However, we are convinced that, in the one case of the urging of physical violence against identifiable groups, to the point of genocide, there is no social interest whatever in allowing advocacy or promotion of violence even at the highest level of abstract discussion. It is odious and unacceptable at any level.
The hon. member argues that without the adoption of the word "public" some private casual conversations might be brought within the web of this legislation in this particular clause. I wish to argue against that as well. Here we are talking about the words "advocates" or "promotes". As the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) said to the House a few minutes ago those words do not apply to accidental, haphazard, occasional unthought, nondeliberate statements. The words "advocates" or "promotes" will be given by a court and jury their ordinary connotation. The shorter Oxford English dictionary, the 1967 edition, defines "advocate" as "to argue in favour of; to recommend publicly", and "promote" as "further the growth, development, progress or establishment of; to further, advance, encourage; to support actively the passing of (a law or measure)". These words imply a course of conduct and they imply some deliberate intent.

[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
Whether that advocacy or promotion is done within the confines of a home or whether it is done in public, it is quite clear by the use of those words that we are talking about the deliberate advocacy or promotion of a type of conduct within the meaning of genocide that is surely abhorrent to the world. Moreover, the hon. member for Greenwood has already mentioned, and indeed the hon. member for New Westminster was fair enough in his own presentation to suggest, that there was and there is an additional defence or precaution in this section militating against a frivolous proceeding undertaken on behalf of one private citizen against another, or a vexatious or mischievous proceeding, because it is clear, and the words of the section bear it out, that under this section no proceeding for an offence shall be instituted without the consent of the attorney general. Within the meaning of the Criminal Code, this is the attorney general of a province.
In summary, we believe that the type of conduct contemplated here against which a criminal sanction is to be imposed is so heinous and so abhorrent to civilized men and women in Canada that the sanction ought to apply no matter where the crime is advocated or promoted; secondly, the terms "advocate" and "promote" are such that they would cover only deliberate, preconceived conduct toward the elimination of a race or of a people of certain colour religion or ethnic origin. Finally, the risk of mischievous, vexatious or frivolous proceeding has been sidestepped hopefully by the requirement of a fiat of an attorney general. For these reasons, I urge the House at this report stage to confirm the committee's decision to reject this amendment.


Mr. Bruce Howard (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to deal briefly with the amendment proposed by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Hogarth). I want to say, first of all, that I consider this amendment to be a most admirable one to present. I do not think there are any members in this House who would disagree with the general provisions and objectives of such an important bill, but I think it very important when we draft a bill of this kind that we be specially careful not to restrict the freedom of all individuals. In looking at the provisions of this bill I think that they come very close to thought control because we are saying to a man that in the privacy of his own home he cannot advocate a reprehensible thought to


other members of his family. We may think that these thoughts are reprehensible, as indeed we do in this particular instance, but I question whether Parliament has the right to say to a man that in the privacy of his home he cannot have an evil thought or communicate it to the members of his family.
I think that this bill goes to dangerous lengths when it attempts to regulate in such a minute way what a man may say to members of his own family, and that is what this bill does. The minister suggested the phrase "may argue in favour of" as a dictionary definition. In other words, a man would be guilty if he "argued in favour of". To argue in favour of a reprehensible act is a pretty minor offence for which to be called upon to answer in the courts. I believe that the hon. member for New Westminster proposed a valuable amendment. I think we would be doing a disservice to the people of Canada if we legislate in such a minute way that we negate the sense of freedom which this Parliament seeks to protect.
I do want to say, therefore, that I support the amendment of the hon. member for New Westminster and 1 will vote for it, even though I am strongly in favour of the general provisions of the bill.


Robert Jardine McCleave: I think that the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Hogarth) has pointed out the horns of a dilemma upon which we find ourselves in dealing with the genocide section of this measure. It is one thing to reach into a person's home life and to say that that person should be punished for teaching his own children that identifiable groups should be the subject of genocide. That may seem as abhorrent as the thought that there would be people who would nurture such thoughts among their young in their own homes. But it is another thing, and this is the other side of the dilemma, that only the small part of the iceberg shows when genocide is actually carried out.
I suggest that if one reflected upon the state of affairs in the 1930s in Nazi Germany and if one wished to punish the perpetrators of those crimes against mankind under Bill C-3, one would find it difficult going because one would find that there were those who publicly stoked the gas ovens but there were also numbers of people hidden behind the grey walls of bureaucracy. These people never made a public statement that certain people should be sent to the gas ovens, and yet their actions were fatal to the people concerned.
Hate Propaganda
Those who carried out the acts were simply the executioners. That is why I say we are faced with a dilemma here. For example, if genocide should ever be carried out against a group in Canada-if somebody were to fall on an identifiable group of people before police action could intervene-I suggest you would find that the executioners who carried this out would clearly fall within the provisions of Bill C-3. However, I suggest also you would find that the boys in the backroom were the ideological spear carriers but not the actual carriers of spears. I suggest that these people would be equally guilty, perhaps even more guilty than those who actually carried out the crime itself.
As I said, I think we are on the horns of a dilemma and the hon. member who presented the amendment has usefully pointed this out to us. I would answer him by saying that his amendment, which adds the word "publicly" does not, however, say "advocacy by public action", and to me that is a very important distinction. I cannot get myself off the horns of the dilemma by accepting his amendment, and therefore I have to follow the reasoned argument of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner)-and I think it is a reasoned one in this case-that the safeguard offered by the attorney general of a province at least is some kind of safeguard. Therefore, in conscience, I am compelled to vote against the amendment proferred.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)


Mr. Mark MacGuigan (Windsor-Walker-ville):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to take issue with the amendment proposed by my colleague from New Westminster. I would like to say at the outset that I think his statement that this legislation is before the House as the result of the political pressure of a particular group in our society does less than justice to the many members of this House who have presented bills on this subject, to the government which has put forward this bill, and to the members of the justice committee who have supported it.
I believe that this bill is before the House of Commons because of social need. Unfortunately, even in our country, we have a certain amount of hate literature in its most virulent form. It is also before this House because in the 20th century there has been a sad history of mass murder, to which I hardly need call the attention of this House.
I believe that my colleague from New Westminster is wrong in his philosophy, in his analysis of the report of the Cohen Commit-

Hate Propaganda
tee, and also in his projection of the application of this law. First as to his philosophy, the hon. member believes that in all cases we should apply the clear and present danger test which was developed in the United States by the great judge, Mr. Justice Holmes. That test, Mr. Speaker, is intended to apply to situations in which there is redeeming social value in the conduct which is in question.
I would submit to members of this House, and in particular to my colleague from New Westminster, that there are certain things which are not within the pale of argument one way or the other. At one end of the spectrum we have the internal freedom of conscience which everyone has. This surely is not subject to any kind of government direction. At the other end we have the belief in, the advocacy, and the promotion of mass murder. That is something at the other extreme in which there is no social value. It is not something about which we can say, "Yes, if we do not have discussion on this, all kinds of undesirable social consequences will follow."
The Cohen Committee agreed, and rightly so, that there is a social interest in allowing discussion of revolution, discussion of overthrowing the government, discussion of all kinds of political questions. But when it comes to a question of solving the political problems of this day by the use of mass murder, by eliminating your opponents, this is surely something in which there is no true interest on the part of society; and if there is no interest on the part of society, then there is no reason that it should be tolerated in a free society.
My colleague from Okanagan Boundary has said that the circumstances in which a person might be convicted could be mild. He used the word mild several times. I suggest he could take that view only if he were concentrating on the words of the formula, and not on the terrible examples of mass murder committed in this century and which could be promoted and advocated here in this country.
Now, with respect to the analysis of the Cohen Report presented by my colleague from New Westminster I can say, I believe without breaking the confidences of the committee, that I wrote the words which were subsequently adopted by the committee and which he has quoted to the House. I would suggest to him that, as the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) has pointed out, he ought to go farther.

After the quotations from the report which we have had presented by the hon. member, these sentences occur in the report:
In our opinion there is no need for any exempting clause in the application of legislation against advocacy of genocide, because there is no social interest in protecting any variety of such advocacy. The prohibition should be absolute because the act is wrong absolutely, i.e., in all circumstances, degrees, times, and ways.
This is the last statement which the committee makes on this subject in its analysis of the situation and its proposals for new legislation. It is true that earlier the word 'public' was used as a part of the rhetoric of the report, because that, of course, is obviously where the most serious danger lies, but the fact is the committee concluded by arguing for the prohibition of the advocacy of genocide "in all circumstances, degrees, times, and ways."
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I believe that my colleague is wrong in his suggestion as to the possible application which this section might have. He has what I might call the "passing moment" conception of the application of this section. He says that a man may be sitting in his living room with his children gathered around him. He may be in his cups and toss off some of these phrases. I say that this is not the kind of situation in which a conviction could occur.
The Minister of Justice has already pointed out that the words here are "advocate or promote." There is no possibility of a man being convicted, be he in his cups or out of his cups, unless he expresses these views in such a way, and believes in them in such a way, that he could be said to be advocating or promoting this most horrible deed. And if he is doing this why should he be exempted? Why should there be any exemption? There is no social interest in it.
What is the interest which the hon. member has suggested? The interest in protection from extortion. This, I believe, is the sole danger which can lie in such legislation, and this is a general problem with the criminal law. I am sure my colleague would argue that it is more dangerous in a situation such as this, but I would suggest to him that this is surely the kind of case in which not only would a prosecutor and a court be careful, but it is also one of the few cases in the law where prosecution is subject to the express approval of the Attorney General.
Obviously, there are safeguards in this legislation. We have, of course, the normal safeguards we generally trust in our society,


that we will not have people who are pressured into certain actions in our society as a result of the fear that they will be pilloried before public opinion. If they have really done these things, there is no reason that they should be protected. If they have not, there is no possibility that they will be subjected to public contumely.
In conclusion, I would say that if we adopt the amendment which is proposed by my colleague from New Westminster, which I believe one of the hon. members opposite has shown is not even as well worded as the amendment which was adopted to a later section, "other than in a private conversation," -that amendment which the committee found it possible to support-we would destroy in very large part the moral effect of this legislation.
Criminal law does deal with morals. It deals with morals when they are public morals, not private morals. And things which occur in private are not always private. They are not private if they involve the advocacy of killing people, and I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that there is nothing on which the people of Canada wish this Parliament to express itself more clearly than their abhorrence of any suggestion that social problems should be resolved by resort to mass murder.


Douglas Aird Hogarth: Would the hon. member
permit a question?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Certainly.


Douglas Aird Hogarth: If the clear and present danger is not the basis on which criminal law should be formulated, why is it we have not got a law that prohibits the advocacy or promotion of the mass death of mentally retarded since that policy has absolutely no social redeeming feature?


Mark R. MacGuigan: I am not sure if I understand my hon. friend's question. I presume this legislation and other legislation of this kind would prohibit murder, would prohibit the annihilation of those people who are mentally retarded, or any others. Perhaps my hon. friend could explain more fully what he has in mind.


Douglas Aird Hogarth: I point out that here we have made it an offence to advocate or promote genocide, and the genocide is directed to an identifiable group which has to be a section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion or ethnic origin. But we have no laws against advocating or promoting the mass
Hate Propaganda
murder of people who might be mentally retarded, and my point is that if the clear and present danger is not the criteria, if it is the lack of social value that forms the basis of our laws, why have we not moved in these many other fields in which the concept has no social value?
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mark R. MacGuigan: My friend is focussing, I believe, Mr. Speaker, on the definition of "identifiable group". Not all forms of mass murder are prohibited by this legislation but only forms which deal with fundamental groups, groups which I might refer to as natural groups. This is where the great problem has been found to lie in the twentieth century. We have not found any serious social problem in most of our countries with people advocating the annihilation of the mentally retarded or mentally insane. If we do, we may require legislation to deal specifically with those instances. We have had a great deal of history in the twentieth century illustrating attempts to annihilate groups which are of the kind here defined.


Mr. P. M. Mahoney (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, I was was rather pleased to find the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan) admitting in his answer that the clear and present danger was in fact the motivation for something like this, and a proper criteria. I think it is natural that anybody who belongs to the Liberal party will have a great deal of difficulty with legislation like this. No single item I can conceive of could present as compelling an end to justify the means as a move to reduce even the thought that genocide might be an acceptable sort of subject for conversation. It is as abhorrent as any single item that one could put one's mind to. Yet what is the means proposed to control this situation?
It seems to me that conversation in the living room or kitchen is more an extension of the thought processes than an extension of public debate.


Gerald William Baldwin: What about the bedrooms?


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: That is a cute phrase and I was coming to it. It seems to me when the law moves into the kitchens and sitting rooms of the nation and it is made an offense to advocate or promote within the family group a thing that is repulsive and abhorrent, you are getting to a point where you have to ask


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I hear some nays and some yeas. All those in favour please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my view the nays have it. I declare the motion negatived. Motion (Mr. Hogarth) negatived.


Eldon Mattison 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 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 forfeited to Her Majesty in right of the province in which that person is convicted, for disposal as the Attorney General may direct.

He said: Mr. Speaker, first of all I should like to thank you with regard to the slight changes in the page numbers to conform to the amended bill. As I said earlier on a point of order, we did not have the new bill before us. This amendment is fairly extensive and deals with that part of the bill concerning advocacy, so I hope I might be allowed to take a little extra time on it. In that case, I would not take any time on third reading because my argument would only be repetitious. I might as well present it now because it is this part of the bill which I wish to attack.
The motion I am presenting to the House today proposes to amend by striking out all the clauses in Bill C-3, but the sections dealing with genocide. I want to pause there for a few moments. I did not speak on that matter When the amendment was moved by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Hogarth) because on the second reading of this bill our party took the position that we were in agreement with the principle of the Bill in this regard. Our position was well set out at that time by the hon. member for Halifax East Hants (Mr. McCleave). No other member of our party spoke to the amendment just recently presented by the hon. member for New Westminster. In our amendment today we are asking that everything be struck out except those sections dealing with genocide.
First of all, I must say that I have contempt for the vile propaganda which this bill is attempting to suppress. In brief, there is no one in this House of Commons, whatever their position, when the final vote is called, who cannot but feel within their heart a complete sympathy for the bill as far as the principle is concerned. But sometimes one has to go beyond the heart and take a look at these matters from a logical and legal point of view. This is what I hope to do today in setting out my argument on my amendment.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
A bill such as is proposed is not a wise or effective way of dealing with the evil involved. The supporters of this bill justified the limitation on freedom of speech and privacy by stating that on balance of public convenience and inconvenience it is warranted to prevent the defamation of groups. I will say something in a few moments about those clauses which deal with statements being made against any identifiable group which may lead to a breach of the peace. I submit that most of these matters have been well protected under the traditions of our system


of democracy and have been included in the Criminal Code of Canada since its inception. The laws are not written for selected individuals. The laws are proper because they apply to all individuals in Canada without regard to colour, race, religion or ethnic origin.
But the present bill, which is defended as providing for groups protection hitherto granted to individuals, introduces new standards. This bill proposes to apply to all groups equally. In fact, it would not apply to most groups within the community. It would not for example, and this is what I think the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Hogarth) was dealing with when he talked about identifiable groups or classes, apply to groups within which hatred and contempt are most acutely felt, where individuals are most systematically maligned, threatened and slandered. This bill would provide no protection for the victims of hatred and contempt if they belonged to the wrong groups.
The hon. member for New Westminster, in dealing with a group or class, dealt with the unfortunate situation of those who are categorized as retarded children. An identifiable group is defined in the bill. It deals with the group and not with any one class. The law does not threaten two years in jail for those whose "communicated statements" incite hatred or contempt of our police officers, military leaders, separatists or political opponents, civil servants or Members of Parliament. I shall go into detail about this in a few moments. A Canadian would still be able to make a profession of inciting hatred and contempt against any group he dislikes, except identifiable groups, and therein lies one of the weaknesses of the bill.
If the bill is to be proper at all then "identifiable" is the wrong word to use. Every group is identifiable. It might be a group of farmers who march to the legislature in Edmonton with their chickens and let them loose, and so on. But they are not an identifiable group under the bill. However, they are a class of people or a group of some kind. Obviously, the word meant is, "designated". Certain groups will be designated and these groups will be protected from hatred and contempt. If this bill passes it will be possible to incite hatred against groups A, B and C but henceforth illegal to incite hatred against groups D, E and F. This is indeed a new principle in criminal law, a principle quite different from that of providing protection for Individuals.
Hate Propaganda
Clearly, the bill is not concerned with hate and contempt as evils in themselves, as bills are concerned with assault or theft as evils in themselves. If hatred and contempt were the evils to be prevented, why make it illegal to promote hatred of race but not illegal to promote hatred of class? Why is hatred of an ethnic group illegal but not of a national or social or cultural or labour or linguistic group? The defence that this bill would extend to groups the same protection hitherto given to individuals will not withstand examination. Protection is given to individuals equally, but protection is proposed to groups selectively. The law should be the same for every citizen from coast to coast in Canada.
Without drawing any dogmatic line, it would seem to me that whatever protection an individual citizen needs that can be given in law he should have by right as an individual equally with other individuals. Anyone looking at the Criminal Code as it is now worded will see that it provides for freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of assembly and, above all, for freedom of the press and freedom of the medias of communication. That will be the strong point I shall stress in a few moments when I argue about our right to speak here and our right to have our speeches reported in the press, through the radio or television, or through any other media that may arise in the future. It seems to me that this bill works on the principle on which we used to bar Indians from beer parlours. We said they were especially vulnerable and needed special protection.
May I refer to the Bill of Rights and what the Supreme Court of Canada said about it. Clearly, the Bill of Rights in itself gives us all the protection we need. I think we all agree, including the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner), that the words used by that great Canadian, the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), in this House on July 1, 1960, were great words. I was in the House, as were several other senior hon. members and heard him say these words, found on page 5649 of Hansard for that date. He said:
I am a Canadian, a free Canadian, free to speak without fear, free to worship God in my own way, free to stand for what I think right, free to oppose what I believe wrong, free to choose those who shall govern my country. This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold for myself and all mankind.
Those are great words spoken by a great prime minister and a great Canadian, and the Supreme Court of Canada has upheld the Bill


Hate Propaganda of Rights which touches on the inalienable civil rights of individuals. What are some of those rights? One is the right of an individual to life. Does that not deal with genocide? Others are the right to liberty, security of person, the enjoyment of property, the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law, the right of an individual to equality before the law and to the protection of the law; the right to freedom of religion, and so on. Those rights were enumerated in that great speech made on July 1, 1960. The right hon. member for Prince Albert said that Canada was the first Commonwealth country to grant freedom of worship in law.
We have not experienced the troubles they have experienced in Britain and other places in the Commonwealth. We were the first to legislate freedom of religion. We have also freedom of assembly and association, and freedom of the press, which can be interpreted to mean freedom of communication of all kinds, be it through radio, television or any means that may arise in future. So, before saying what the Supreme Court of Canada said, I just wish to show hon. members that the Criminal Code and the Bill of Rights today protect Canadians against any difficulties which might arise as described in this piece of window dressing.
The hon. member for New Westminster and his father are both great lawyers of tremendously high calibre. Both have served as Crown prosecutors in our country and served our nation well in this regard. This afternoon the hon. member touched the pulse of this debate when he said that this measure is a political move. The bill is introduced to win votes. The Bill of Rights and the Criminal Code protect us adequately. May I deal with this at some length, Mr. Speaker, as this will save my having to speak on third reading.
The Criminal Code and the Bill of Rights, as interpreted by our courts, give us all the protection we need. Do you think for one moment that if this bill were not introduced, if this piece of window dressing were not brought in, any Canadian tonight would be in fear of genocide? I shall deal with the question of ridicule in a few moments. If we were not permitted some ridicule and were not permitted to create some disturbances, this would be a sorry country indeed. Democracy would be pretty dead. Little reflection is needed to understand how widely varied may be the kinds of communicated statements which do in fact incite hatred or contempt.

[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
We have only to look at the famous Russell case and the book which the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maelnnis) wrote about her father, Mr. Woodsworth. Every Member of Parliament and every Canadian should read that book. When the soldiers returned from the war to end all wars, World War I, unemployment was rampant in this country. There were poverty, ghettos and unemployment, maybe even worse than we have today. Men like Mr. Woodsworth and other great labour leaders brought men together. What happened to them? They were charged under the Criminal Code. If we compare the Code of those days with the Code of today, we see that they could not have been convicted since they wanted to ridicule and treat with contempt the society in which they were living because they could not get jobs and dared to unite in unions. Whether we agree with the philosophy of Mr. Woodsworth or not, he was a great Canadian who should be remembered.
The daughter of Mr. Woodsworth has written a book on the great drama of the life of her father. This book shows there is a time when we must incite and when there must be protests beyond the stagnation of the legislature and even Parliament. Possibly the fellow who heckled me this afternoon was right. I must apologize. I thought it came from the rump of the chamber. When I said there was nothing wrong with Parliament, he had a right to say what he did. He may have been ridiculing the institution, but when this or any other parliamentary institution does not function and serve society, one of two things will happen. Either we slide into a dictatorship or else the protests take place outside the chamber.
Thank God there have been men who have incited, showed contempt and ridiculed. Whether it is through a union or otherwise, the average Canadian can negotiate proper hours and wages and in this way we got the children out of the mines and factories. That is why I oppose certain sections of the bill, and moved my amendment. I do not want to put a lid on free speech.
I am going to refer to what Professor Mewett and Professor Scott had to say. I do not know what Professor Mewett's politics are, but I have a pretty good idea of Professor Scott's.


An hon. Member:: He is intelligent.
April 6, 1S70	COMMONS DEBATES	5533
Guaranteed Annual Income


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I agree that he is highly assault or by threat, is to open the way for intelligent. Little reflection is needed to other groups to nominate other "bad guys understand how widely varied may be the who may be silenced by assault or by threats, kinds of communicated statements which do which as I said in committee, is exactly what
in fact incite hatred or contempt. The paradox is that not only is it bad speeches, speeches intentionally so designed to incite hatred or contempt. The most necessary word that has to be said in society at the most critical time may incite the most fanatical hatred. The speeches of John F. Kennedy and Robert F. Kennedy incited hatred. And these men were both shot. The speeches of Martin Luther King indisputably incited hatred and contempt of himself and others, among those who feared, in their own contemptible phrases which I do not want to repeat.
The late President of the United States, John F. Kennedy and the late Attorney General of the United States, Robert Kennedy, made certain statements. A few moments before he was assassinated Robert Kennedy said in a speech that if he were the President of the United States, help would go to Israel. That incited contempt and ridicule in an Arab who had some problems, a hang-up as the young people say, from the environment from which he came. Because of that, Robert Kennedy lost his life.
I want to emphasize that great leaders of the world who brought about reforms and progress had to incite somebody. They had to knock over the establishment. I will come to what Professor Mewett had to say. In my opinion, this bill will not help minorities. If implemented and ever used, which I question, it would work against minorities, not for them.
Section 267B adds the qualification "where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace". Consider what this might mean in practice. If someone is advancing an unpopular cause, which some other person thinks will expose him to hatred or contempt, then if the over-agitated person gathers together a gang of his buddies and threatens to beat the speaker to a pulp, the law will move in to arrest, not the mob which is threatening the peace, but the prospective victim.
This tactic, cleverly exploited, could obliquely recruit the courts of the land as reserve allies of a fanatical group. Freedom of speech is, of course, not without limit. But it is meaningless if it is freedom for unpopular or even contemptible opinion. To admit that certain groups in society are "bad guys" and that they may therefore be silenced by
the Nazis did.
Thirty years ago in Quebec, a certain premier passed the notorious padlock law. In Quebec at the time no questioner could get any rational consideration of the true nature of the bill for fear of seeming to be soft on communism. The sections of this bill on hate propaganda, though not a padlock law, seems to me to be dangerously vague and susceptible to abuse. We are not faced with a clear and present danger that warrants such sections on hatred and contempt.
I say we are protected under the Code and by the Bill of Rights. What crisis exists in Canada today that makes it necessary to control freedom of speech within the limits of reasonable men? Reasonable men are tempered by the society and the culture of Canada. I trust Canadians; they are reasonable.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Mac-quarrie)-Post Office-Montreal postal dispute; the hon. member for Vancouver-Kings-way (Mrs. Maclnnis)-consumer affairs- action respecting non-returnable bottles; the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave)-Criminal Code-proclamation of remainder of amendments respecting breathalyzer.
It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper, namely, notices of motions.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' NOTICES OF MOTIONS


John Edward Broadbent: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should give consideration to the advisability
Guaranteed Annual Income of ensuring by law a guaranteed annual income as a means of ensuring that all Canadians will have an income sufficient to provide for a life of dignity.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
He said: Mr. Speaker, since the election of 1968, in my judgment there have been only two meaningful and desirable pieces of legislation which we have passed. These are the languages bill on the one hand and the omnibus bill, offering a series of good, constructive amendments to the Criminal Code, on the other. Both these measures were inherited from the last Parliament; they were not generated by the present government, nor by members who presently sit in opposition. My conclusion is that nothing of significance has been done except for the passing of these bills which came from a previous government. Recently we saw the government increase the pensions to which Members of Parliament are entitled. We have watched the government trying to deal with inflation by putting thousands of Canadians out of jobs as a deliberate instrument of economic policy. Continuing consideration has been given to a white paper on taxation which has been masquerading as a document of significant reform, although it contains within it a proposal to continue taxing the poor in Canada. All this suggests to me something which must be regarded as the prevailing characteristic of the Trudeau government, namely, a small "c" conservatism which has done nothing to improve the social, economic, and, by extension, the spiritual well being of Canadians. This hour affords an opportunity for ordinary Members of Parliament in all parties to show that they are concerned about the well being of their fellow countrymen. They have an opportunity to vote for this resolution; they need not talk it out. I hope they will act upon it.
First, I should like to say something about the need for some form of guaranteed annual income or, as I call it, a guaranteed minimal annual income. To my mind, this represents the single most effective and efficient means of attacking, simultaneously, both material and spiritual poverty in this country. Of course, it is by no means the only action which could be taken to achieve progress in this direction, but by one stroke of legislation we could make an important advance. The object of this proposal is not simply to alleviate poverty in our land, but to eradicate it.
According to the Economic Council of Canada, the Canadian Welfare Council and other similar bodies in this country, there are [Mr. Broadbent.l

between four and five million people living in a state of poverty in this rich country of ours. How does the Economic Council define poverty? It proposes that a family be regarded as poor if it spends 70 per cent or more of its income on food, clothing and shelter. I believe most hon. members will agree that this is a reasonable definition; any family which has to devote 70 per cent or more of its income to the provision of food, clothing and shelter has little left with which to do, or acquire, those other things which hon. members of this House, for example, would regard as being the normal expectation of people living a civilized existence. Virtually no money is left for recreation in any of its forms. There is no separation, as many like to suggest, between material conditions and spiritual life. There is an inextricable connection between the two. They are bound together. In seeking to overcome material poverty we will be laying the foundation for a fuller spiritual life.
Who are the poor? They include the 50,000 or more who receive old age assistance benefits. They include more than 700,000 elderly persons who receive a guaranteed income supplement. They include the young men and women who have recently left school and who cannot find jobs-incidentally, these represent the fastest growing section of the unemployed. You will find the poor among our Indian, Eskimo and Metis population whose life expectancy is just over half what it is for the rest of us in Canada-surely, a national disgrace. You will find them among the women receiving mothers' allowances- over 165,000 of them-and you will find them among that grotesquely overlooked groups of people, the blind and the disabled who receive special allowances. Thousands fall into this category. Most of these people receive welfare assistance in some form, inadequate though it may be. To some degree, therefore, they are present in the consciousness of Canadians throughout the country.
However, in addition to helping people such as these, a guaranteed minimum income would benefit the group of people who are consistently overlooked not only by those responsible for legislative programs but also by the average citizen. I refer to the working men and women of all ages who are unable to earn sufficient in their jobs to escape from a state of poverty. Most of them are non-unionized workers. Let us not forget that less than a majority of the working people of Canada belong to unions, the worst record of any industrialized country in the world. The group I have in mind consists, too, of workers,

5S35
April 6. 1970	COMMONS
whether unionized or not, who live in the economically poor areas of Canada. A guaranteed income program would do something effective to improve conditions affecting this important category of Canadians. It is important to note that in 76 per cent of the poor families at least one member of the family is working. In other words, 76 per cent of all those families officially designated as living in poverty include one or more members who go out to work. These are the working poor.
I wish to deal briefly, now, with two myths. The first one, I call the abusive myth. This is a view held by many people in this country, unfortunately, and it goes as follows: That people on welfare really tend to abuse the system; that they live high on the hog; that they use their welfare payment for a downpayment on a new car. All kinds of bizarre and, in my judgment, cruel stories go around to this effect.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
What is the evidence? The evidence, recently confirmed in an article published in "Canadian Welfare" by Professor Stephen Peitchinis of the University of Calgary, is that 95 per cent of the people on welfare who were studied were found to be legitimate welfare cases. They were people who were living in an unfortunate state and had no meaningful alternative. Less than 5 per cent could be seen to be in any way cheating or abusing the system. This recent study merely confirms the whole history of studies done in this country and elsewhere and which reached the same conclusion. In short, the vast majority of people on welfare in our country, as well as elsewhere, have no alternative and would damn well like to be working.
The second myth is that somehow we need to keep people at a relatively low level of income in order to get them to do any work at all. This I call the incentive myth. It is said that unless you really do have a number of people suffering a little-not to a substantial degree, but suffering a little-these people will sit back and do nothing. Once again the evidence is completely to the contrary. I would refer to anybody who wants to rely on evidence as opposed to irrational prejudice a current study that is now being done specifically on the question of a guaranteed annual income in the state of New Jersey. The evidence provided so far-though the study is by no means complete-conclusively suggests that people do not require financial incentive to work. It confirms that there is something in

Guaranteed Annual Income human beings that the so-called romantics have referred to as integrity, as the desire to make one's fair contribution to the productive labour of mankind.
I will leave these myths at this point. I have mentioned them because I suspect that they may be brought up in this debate or elsewhere in the country. I leave them, I hope, with the clear suggestion, one based on evidence, that they are myths and should not be taken seriously.
I should now like to get into the specific form of guaranteed minimum income that I have in mind. There have, of course, been many proposals, a wide variety, coming from all sides of the political spectrum. My own preference is for a 100 per cent federal program which would be related to the level of taxable income and the annual estimate of poverty level incomes that is made by the Economic Council of Canada. The explicit objective of the guaranteed minimum income program would be to ensure that no family or independent single person in this country has an income which is at or below the poverty level.
The program would be implemented in the following manner. First, any man or woman could apply for the guaranteed minimum income at the beginning of each year. This would be done simply by filling in a form giving an estimate of the individual's or family's income for the coming year. Second, if the estimated income of the person or family falls below the current estimate made by the Economic Council of Canada of the existing poverty levels, then the applicant would be eligible for a monthly federal government payment which would enable the person or family to escape from the poverty level income category. Third, if during the course of the year the income position of the person or family improved, they would be expected to inform the government so that the rate of payment could either be altered or abolished completely. Fourth, at the end of each year when the recipient fills in an income tax form, which would be obligatory for all recipients, if he had received payments in excess of the requirements he would be obliged to repay to the federal government the excess amount in monthly instalments. Fifth, abuses of the guaranteed minimum income program would be checked in precisely the same way as are income tax evasions at present.
With regard to cost, our research people have estimated that, assuming the abolition of


Mr. Murray McBride (Lanark and Renfrew):: Mr. Speaker, motion No. 14 standing in the name of the hon. member who has just spoken raises a very broad and important matter for consideration this afternoon. As all members of the House are aware, there has been considerable discussion in recent years in all corners of our country about income maintenance schemes which in some way would guarantee a minimum income to all Canadians. This, of course, would be a major attack on poverty in our country. These proposals are given different labels such as negative income tax, guaranteed annual income, family security plans and so on. While they have certain essential similarities, often the plans differ as to specific features and approach. Difficulty in understanding arises when the same scheme is referred to by several different names, and when expressions like "negative income tax" are used to describe all the different methods proposed.
Guaranteed income describes all types of income maintenance measures which guarantee a continuing flow of income to all persons in a specific population group, or to all persons in a given category, or to the population at large. "Guaranteed income" is therefore a most comprehensive concept and is any scheme which guarantees an annual amount of income, while "Guaranteed minimum income" is a scheme which brings all persons up to a specified minimum level of income. Negative income tax is one approach which can be used to provide a guaranteed income.
I should like, first of all, to make a few comments about negative income tax. It seems to me this is a system which would propose to use income tax as a means for closing part of the poverty income gap. The poverty-income gap is the difference between the actual income of a poor person or poor family and the income they would need in order not to be poor.
This involves using the income tax system in reverse. Under a negative income tax
April 6, 1970	COMMONS
scheme a prescribed income level would be established at which no taxes and no benefits are received. Persons with incomes in excess of this level would pay income taxes on the excess income, while persons whose incomes fall short of this level would receive a benefit equal to a percentage of the difference between his actual income and the prescribed income level. This income gap is considered to be "negative income" and the percentage of this "negative income" given as a benefit is considered to be a tax, hence the expression "negative income tax". The level of income orescribed for a negative income tax scheme can be either the personal income tax paying level, or an officially determined poverty line or any other income standard.
There are two main methods for determining income deficiency under negative income taxation. One of these, as suggested by Friedman and Lampman, is to determine a person's income gap; that is, the amount by which total income tax exemption and deductions exceed actual income, and then fix a benefit at some percentage of this income gap. Friedman and Lampman suggested a benefit equal to 50 per cent of the income-gap, while other suggestions have been made, namely by Lampman and Schwartz, to pay 100 per cent of the income gap which would bring all persons up to the prescribed minimum income level. Another method is to assign to each unit a fixed allowance which could be varied by family size and family composition to reduce the initial value of this allowance by some percentage applied to other income received and to pay out the net value of the allowance, if any, as a benefit. This is the method which is used with the Guaranteed Income Supplement program and in the New Jersey experiment which was alluded to by the member who spoke before me.
With the first method, it is possible to provide income to fill all or part of the income gap, while with the second method it would be possible, depending on the rate of the fixed allowance and the recovery tax applied to other income, to guaran'ee incomes to levels exceeding those which are generally regarded as poverty levels.
Negative income taxation then is one technique which can be used to guarantee an annual income. The use of guaranteed annual income, the term used in motion No. 14 which is before us today, as a new income maintenance technique has been advocated by many people from all walks of life representing both the right and left of social thought.
DEBATES	5537
Guaranteed. Annual Income Some of these people are actually opposed to social welfare, but they see the guaranteed annual income as a better alternative to the present mixture of social security programs which will provide what they consider to be a more realistic system at less cost. The scheme has also been advocated by many others who regard the present social security as inadequate and who wish to have income support considerably expanded and extended.
While the concept of the guaranteed annual income has come into a great deal of prominence lately, it is not a new idea. In fact a program based on the principle of the guaranteed annual income was used in England from 1795 to 1834, but was abandoned because the use of such a scheme was believed to have a depressing effect on wages and on the mobility of labour. The concept lay dormant until World War II, when its use on a universal basis was strongly advocated in England by Lady Rhys-Williams. A similar approach was suggested in Canada in 1965 by a Canadian industrialist, D. B. Smith, and in 1966 by the Senate committee on aging, for persons over 65. These representations did not give rise to the use of the concept on a wide scale but its use on a more limited basis has been put in practice in England and in Canada.
In this respect the Canadian Guaranteed Income Supplement program, which provides an income-tested supplementary benefit to old age security pensioners who qualify, is based on the principle of the guaranteed annual income but is applied only to aged persons receiving the old age security pension. In the United Kingdom a universally applied social assistance program called the Supplementary Benefits Scheme virtually provides a guaranteed annual income to all persons in need.
It is obvious I think to anyone who considers the motion before us today, or the issues that are before us in a broader sweep, that there are some definite advantages to the guaranteed annual income scheme. Many of the features of the guaranteed annual income approach are excellent and have advantages over some of the income support measures now used. For example, the system enables larger benefits to be directed to families and individuals having low incomes at a lower cost than under certain of the social security programs now in force.
Payments can be made on the basis of a simple income test which does away with the social stigma normally associated with the receipt of public assistance and does not


Guaranteed Annual Income require potential beneficiaries to undergo the degradation of having their incomes and assets, as well as their way of life scrutinized to determine eligibility, as is required by the provincial social assistance programs partially supported under the Canada Assistance Plan. While these advantages are important, the approach also has a number of disadvantages and limitations which cannot be overlooked. It may be helpful to discuss several of the problems associated with the use of the guaranteed annual income as an income maintenance measure.
One important question is whether the guaranteed annual income would replace in whole or in part or supplement the present social security system. The existing social security system has evolved slowly over time in response to emerging social and economic needs and indeed the emerging social conscience on the part of society generally.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
Programs have been designated and indeed designed to provide solutions to underlying social and economic problems, but the design has often been limited by the availability of financial resources and more urgent and important priorities for other areas of government spending. The present system is indeed not perfect. I do not think anyone would suggest that our social system of welfare legislation is perfect in Canada, but it is continually being improved as social and economic conditions change with time.
It seems to me that it will be necessary to adapt any new method of providing income support to Canada's existing social security system. It was done, as we all know, in the case of the guaranteed income supplement for old age pensioners. At the same time, some of the existing programs will no doubt be modified, and others may be abandoned in the future. With respect to the possible replacement of existing income maintenance programs, it is important to keep in mind the objectives of existing programs.
A program such as unemployment insurance is designated and designed to provide income for the short-term unemployment of all covered members of the labour force regardless of annual income. It replaces temporary wage loss due to unemployment without requiring recipients to have less than some subsistence level of income in order to qualify. On the other hand, the Canada Pension Plan and the old age security pension program have as one of their objectives the 
provision of income support to aged, disabled and widowed beneficiaries regardless of their other income.
Workmen's compensation is designed to provide for income support and health services arising from work-connected accidents or industrial disease. The maximum levels of support are more generous than those that would apply under a guaranteed minimum income concept.
Consequently, the effect of introducing a guaranteed annual inome program on existing programs needs to be examined closely in relation to the social and economic objectives being served by many of the existing social security programs. The existing system provides health and welfare services as well as income support, and it is well to keep in mind that a guaranteed annual income is not an answer to social needs where social services over and above maintenance payments are required. The guaranteed annual income can only relate to cash benefit payments.
Another question is that of financial cost. There is not only the question of the ability of the nation to finance such a scheme, but the problem of the effects of total cost on the adequacy of benefits. If a guaranteed annual income program is to provide some minimum level of adequacy, a necessary first step is to establish minimum living standards which would vary as to family size and composition, geographic location and rural or urban residence, and to translate these living standards into terms of income so that they can be used as standards for payment as well as standards for eligibility. The determination of minimum living standards is not an easy task but it is absolutely necessary if equity is to be maintained among the many different family units which might receive a guaranteed annual income.
A further problem is the relationship of the benefit payment to those income levels corresponding to the minimum living standards. The benefit could be equal to the gap between a person's actual income and his appropriate minimum standard of income, or it could be some percentage of this gap or it could overlap the standard to extend income support beyond the minimum standards in order to prevent inequities arising as between families at the margin.
I think you can see that the choice of the standards and the choice of the benefit level in relation to these standards have important effects on the cost of the scheme. The higher the standards, the greater will be the cost;
April 6, 1970	COMMONS
and the greater the benefit in relation to those standards, the greater the cost also. If the benefit equals the income gap, it may be adequate but at the same time discourage some people from working, therefore making the scheme more costly in economic terms. If the benefit is less than the income gap, it will be less costly than the approach just mentioned but may not be adequate. If the benefit levels extend beyond the minimum income standards, the levels of support will be adequate, work efforts will be encouraged because a person will always be better off by working, but the scheme may be far too expensive in terms of the nation's ability to finance it at present and in the immediate future.
Finally, a problem which is very often discussed with respect to a guaranteed annual income approach is the effect of such a program on the incentive to work of beneficiaries or potential beneficiaries. Two possible considerations with respect to work incentives are, first, whether the guaranteeing of a minimum income and the taxing away of income when it was at high rates would reduce the work effort of people affected and, second, if the level of the guaranteed income is high enough, whether some families and individuals would be so satisfied with the amounts transferred to them that they would partially, substantially or completely reduce their work effort.
Some studies have been done in the United States and in England on the effect of high marginal tax rates on the incentive to work. These have mainly been concerned with the effect on persons in the upper income brackets. While the results of these studies showed no noticeable effect on the work effort among those with high incomes, these conclusions may not be valid among persons with low incomes. An interim report on an important experiment and study in the United States which has just been received is very reassuring with regard to low income groups.
In Canada there are a number of factors operating to encourage work effort. We live in a work-oriented society where a person is expected to work and his social status is judged on employment status and the nature of his employment. The question of the effect of income transfers on the work effort of low income members of the population is one that needs to be examined further both theoretically and practically.
One project aimed at a thorough examination of the effects of a guaranteed income on
DEBATES	5539
Guaranteed Annual Income incentives to work is the New Jersey experiment which I mentioned earlier. That is a three-year experimental study involving the use of the negative income tax technique of income maintenance on a limited group of families in New Jersey. It is financed by the Office of Economic Opportunity through the Institute for Research on Poverty at the University of Wisconsin and is being conducted by Mathematics Incorporated, a firm in Princeton, New Jersey.
The sample being used is 1,200 low income households with working-age heads selected at random from among three metropolitan areas in New Jersey. The selection of the household heads was made in such a way as to provide a homogeneous group to reduce design and analysis problems and to eliminate certain types of family heads whose economic and social circumstances are such as to basically distort the study.
Four hundred of these households are the control group which do not receive income guarantee payments but are paid a small fee for taking part in interviews every three months. The other 800 are enrolled in one or other of the various negative income tax plans and receive money by cheque every two weeks. They are interviewed four times a year for the full three years and prepare every four weeks a short tax return reporting on their income and family size. The amount of money paid every two weeks is determined on the basis of the interviews and reports and an audit run by the program itself.
The composition of the eligible family unit and the concept of income used were two basic problems underlying the experiment. The research design provided that the definition should closely correspond to the definition of "family" and "income" used for census purposes. The eligible unit includes husband and wife and any child or other person, related or not, who lives with and derives more than half his support from the family head.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
This definition falls somewhere between the census concepts of "economic family" and "census family." During the course of the experiment no entries are permitted into the family unit, except by birth or in the case of a minor child after an initial waiting period of six months. Rules have also been set down indicating what persons are considered to have left the family unit.
The concept of income is a broadened measure of income because it is more compre-


Guaranteed Annual Income hensive than that used under the U.S. income tax system and is also a family measure because it includes income of all family members. The definition of income used in the income tax system has been broadened to include such things as pensions, gifts, gross rented value of owner-occupied housing occupied rent free, social security payments, capital gains and losses, but it excludes public assistance payments and permits certain other deductions. The period over which income is calculated-


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


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Does the House give unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Murray Arndell McBride: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The period over which income is calculated for determining the benefit is an important feature of the scheme. The prime consideration in a guaranteed income maintenance scheme is to match current benefits to current income in the benefit year so that benefits are neither too high nor too low for current needs. Under the positive income tax system the problem is handled by using an annual accounting period with pay-as-you-go taxes or a scheme for withholding tax payments so that taxpayers are kept "current" and are not faced with unduly heavy tax payments when the income tax returns are filed. There are certain other important features which have to do with this experiment, Mr. Speaker, but I wish to share with the House only some of the conclusions which are to be drawn from it.
Preliminary results of the survey have just been released by the Office of Economic Opportunity. Again, Mr. Speaker, they were referred to by the hon. member previously. These results are based upon an analysis of the data gathered in the period August, 1968, to October, 1969, from 509 families in Trenton, Paterson and Passaic, New Jersey. The data suggest, and I think this is the most important thing of all, that there is no evidence that work effort declined among those receiving income support payments. On the contrary, there is an indication that the work effort of participants receiving payments increased relative to the work effort of those not receiving payments. Low income families receiving supplementary benefits tend to [Mr. McBride.1
reduce borrowing, buy fewer items on credit, and purchase more consumer goods such as furniture and appliances.
A number of in-depth interviews of participants in the project were conducted in order to determine the attitudes of low income individuals toward work. These interviews clearly indicated that low income people are strongly motivated toward work. The majority of those interviewed indicated that they aspire for a better job and are willing to move to another city or take training even if it means a pay cut in order to get that better job. The majority also indicated that they are willing to work in two jobs to support their families. Of all the factors influencing work choice, job security was ranked twice as high by participants as any other job factor, including wages, working conditions or job interest. These people wanted to work. Here again, this study destroys the widely-held myth that the poor are lazy and that they are only poor because they are lazy. These responses from the participants indicate that supplementary income assistance will not reduce their work effort.
We have a number of other experiences within Canada, but in case other hon. members wish to participate in this debate I will now relinquish the floor.


John Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question? I rather enjoyed his interesting remarks for 25 minutes, but I could not reach any conclusion as to whether he agreed with a guaranteed annual income. Would he tell us?


Murray Arndell McBride: Mr. Speaker, if the House agrees I will be happy to finish my speech.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Just
answer yes or no.


Murray Arndell McBride: Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, I had carried out too much research and had too much material before me, but I think it is very clear that I am much enthused about the Calgary experiment and I think there is important knowledge to be gained from it upon which legislation could be based. I am equally enthused about the New Jersey experiment. I am sure that much of the study now being undertaken on old age security annual supplements will also be of benefit in bringing about useful, positive legislation in Canada.


Mr. David Wealherhead (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. friend, the member for Oshawa-Whitby


(Mr. Broadbent), for giving the House the opportunity of discussing this very important subject this afternoon. On October 28 last I made a speech during the debate on the Speech from the Throne in which I spent considerable time commenting on various guaranteed annual income schemes, and I welcome the opportunity of further discussing them this afternoon.
Last November my third report to my riding, mailed to all my constituents, included a questionnaire which contained the question: "Do you believe that a guaranteed income plan should become the basis of a revised welfare program?" Interestingly enough, after the questionnaires were returned I discovered that the opinions of my constituents were split exactly 50-50 on this subject. Many who returned the questionnaires wrote additional comments on them or included letters with them, and many of the letters showed a quite deep suspicion of a guaranteed income plan. Such comments as, "Numerous people prefer no more, and live on welfare because easier" and, "I don't believe in giving freeloaders an easy ride" were used by some of my constituents.
The principle of a guaranteed income plan is a very difficult one for many people because of the high cost of our many social welfare schemes and the high taxes everyone has to pay to support them. It is an especially difficult concept for those who work hard to earn perhaps $1,000 to $4,000 more than the amount that would be subsidized under a guaranteed income plan. These people in, say, the $5,000 to $8,000 a year income level-and they are very numerous in my riding-realize that they would receive no direct benefit under such a scheme, and many of them-and also many in higher income brackets-believe that the people who live in public housing and/or receive municipal welfare or assistance under mothers' allowances and similar plans are taking advantage of them, the hardworking taxpayers.
Over the years federal Liberal governments have initiated all our main social security legislation and I am proud of their record in that regard. Some $6 billion are spent annually by the federal government on social security and social development programs, including $1,760 million for old age security and guaranteed income supplements for our senior citizens, $906,000,000 for hospital insurance, $889,000,000 in equalization payments to less developed provinces, $618,000,000 to postsecondary education, $616,000,000 for family

Guaranteed Annual Income and youth allowances, $472,000,000 for the Canada Assistance Plan which pays for one-half the cost of the provincial social security schemes, $214,000,000 for manpower retraining, $181,000,000 for medicare, as well as unemployment insurance benefits which are largely financed by direct contributions from employers and employees.
However, Mr. Speaker, despite the value of all these programs they have not directly met the needs of the 25 per cent of our people who are living below the poverty level as defined by the Economic Council of Canada. To me, therefore, a guaranteed income plan which would have to include excellent incentives to work for additional income is needed as quickly as possible in Canada before we can hope to win our war against poverty.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
It has become a cliche to state that we are a rapidly changing society, but it is a very true and major characteristic of our changing society that we are in the midst of a social and cultural revolution. If we ignore this mood in the development of our social policies and programs, we do so at our own peril. In the midst of this social and cultural change, some of the basic principles which have for centuries governed the manner in which we have dealt with the more vulnerable members of our society should be questioned and challenged. In brief, the concept of aiding the poor through charitable handouts or public assistance relief measures may well be outmoded.
The technological revolution has been a major factor in producing almost a quarter-century of solid economic growth for Canada. For 19 years we have enjoyed economic expansion at a healthy 5.1 per cent annual rate, and for 18 years wages and salaries have gone up at the annual rate of 8.7 per cent. The Economic Council suggests it is realistic to hope for a further 35 per cent increase in our standard of living by 1975. In the midst of this economic growth we are increasingly puzzled as to why some 25 per cent of our population seem unable to participate in this new wealth, and why the gap between the "haves" and "have nots" is growing.
Although a moralistic approach to poverty dies hard, the concept that poverty is in most cases a consequence beyond the individual's control is now being more widely accepted in Canada. We will likely continue to be a work-orientated, indeed a work-addicted society. While fewer workers may be required,


Guaranteed Annual Income because of technological advancement, to produce the necessary goods and services, our rising aspirations and increased standard of living will demand even more goods and especially services, thereby keeping demand for labour high.
The most desirable way for a man to acquire sufficient income is through gainful employment. Therefore, the primary aim of our social policies should be to guarantee the individual the freedom and the opportunity to carry responsibility so far as he is able for meeting his own needs and aspirations. However, when he fails for whatever reason to provide for his own needs, including an adequate income, we are confronted inevitably and invariably with the core question: Does a man have a right to an adequate income?
An adequate income is by no means the only criterion in avoiding poverty, nor will a plan of guaranteed income by itself eradicate poverty. Without an income sufficient to purchase the essentials of modern living, a family is likely to remain poor. Hence, the provision of an adequate income should be basic to a war on poverty and it should also be central to our social security system. We have tried for too many decades to sidestep this fundamental truth. For too long our social workers, economists, businessmen and politicians have clung tenaciously to the view that the poor could be cajoled, coaxed, counselled and case-worked either into a state of independence or into acceptance of their unhappy lot. Only during the past few years have we begun to realize more clearly that this system does not work and is not cheap, but on a cost-benefit ratio it is very expensive.
I am not advocating doing away with all case-work. We will need to continue to work with the poor in all age groups on an individual basis; we will have to help them in developing plans for adequate education, training, adult retraining, resettlement to job opportunities and all the rest. We will also have to provide public housing for some, and we will have to expand our day care services. The Toronto Star on March 20, 1970, focused on the desperate need for day care facilities in metropolitan Toronto where 135,000 children need day care, 45,000 of them being under six years old; yet in all metropolitan Toronto there are only 83 day nurseries with places for 3,710 pre-school children. An adequate income is no substitute for these services, but most of these programs will be expensive and an exercise in futility unless


we also provide poor families with an income adequate to purchase the necessities of our modern life.
Our tax reform proposals which increase the single exemption from $1,000 to $1,400 and the married exemption from $2,000 to $2,800 will certainly be of some help to people who fall below the poverty line. The proposal allowing an exemption of up to $500 per child for day care expense for up to four children will also help working mothers, but these proposals do not go very far in themselves toward providing our poor people with an adequate income.
Mr. Speaker, Mr. Reuben Baetz, the executive director of the Canadian Welfare Council, in a paper he wrote for our Harrison conference last fall stated that there are five principles which must be applied rigorously to any system designed to provide a guaranteed income, and I agree with him on them. They are: 1. Will it provide most help to those who need it most? 2. Is it equitable; is it fair to all concerned? 3. Does it enhance rather than destroy human dignity? 4. Is it efficient to administer? 5. Is it economically feasible?
It would seem that the present social assistance programs fail in varying degrees in every test, and that the negative income tax approach of guaranteed income comes through with a much higher score. Regarding No. 1-will it provide help to those who need it most?-this is the question raised by a tax-weary public. In light of the $6.5 billion spent annually by our three levels of government on direct social security programs, a perplexed public asks: Why do we continue to have the poor with us? The answer is, of course, that most of our costly programs were never designed to help most of those who needed it most. The over $600 million tax free family allowance program is a classic example, and the more than $1 billion in old age security benefits is another. A negative income tax system with its guaranteed floor and steady scales of allowances based on an income test will provide, without equivocation, most help to those in greatest financial need.
Secondly, is it equitable; is it fair to all concerned? In a number of ways our present public assistance programs violate the rules of fair play and equity. In many regions of the country a fully-employed man receives no help at all, even though the family income is below any standard of adequacy. This principle of "all or nothing at all'' is also applied to


families who are on public welfare but who have some earnings. They generally have one dollar deducted from welfare for every extra dollar that they earn.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. The hour allotted for private members' business having expired, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-3, to amend the Criminal Code, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, prior to private members' hour I was dealing particularly with those clauses of the amendment that relate to advocacy. I said that it is tragically true that in Canada tiny groups of perverted individuals circulate literature that is filthy, malicious and scurrilous; but ideas, good or bad, are seldom buried in jail. As I have pointed out, there is plenty of protection against this sort of thing in the Criminal Code and the Bill of Rights. What we might be doing here is creating the possibility for people to become martyrs. Ideas, as I said before, are seldom buried in jail. As Professor Harry Arthurs, Dean of Osgood Hall, has said, to pass this bill could mean that in the name of democracy we sacrificed democracy. The police crackdown or the jail sentence is a singularly ineffective way of diminishing hatred and contempt.
The most effective strategy to counter either the pathological fanaticism that distributes smear sheets or the more sophisticated expressions of those prejudices and hostilities that still survive among groups in our society is not the incarceration of a few annoying individuals. I cannot admit that we are approaching bankruptcy in terms of our moral and educational resources to deal with the problem of hate and contempt.
Hate Propaganda
With the Canadian Bill of Rights of 1960 we have a new development in the law. The Bill has been interpreted in the Drybones case and now the courts take cognizance of the Bill of Rights which protects us. We have moved into a new concept of how to protect human rights and particularly how to eliminate racial discrimination.
I refer to the human rights commissions that are now being established by various provinces, of which the best example is the Ontario Human Rights Commission. Here we have a new method of approaching this problem. In my opinion we do not need more criminal law. Why involve the police, and why have trials. Matters such as hate and love are in a realm of human behaviour where law is a very awkward and clumsy form of control. You do not release the hatred by more prohibitions, but by fair human rights legislation.
Our anti-discrimination laws are greatly advanced and are developing all the time. To my mind this new kind of approach is almost like a social worker's approach. By a proper and well-balanced system of education you reach the minds of people and raise the dignity of the individual. Individuals are raised to such an extent and their expressions become such that they lack the capacity for this kind of hate literature which is published, as I said before, by small groups.
The second point is that the clauses of the bill dealing with hate literature are not necessary. This is crisis legislation, and there is no crisis in Canada. The bill undoubtedly constitutes an increase in the prohibitions of the Criminal Code and therefore a decrease in the freedom of the individual. I see no pressing evil at this moment, and I do not think anybody can produce evidence of any, in Canada that warrants its necessity.
As for the argument of fulfilling any obligations we may have internationally, there are two international conventions that might seem to give us obligations. There is the Genocide Convention and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. There is good authority to say that our present law is adequate to fulfil our obligations under these conventions, international agreements or arrangements.
The third argument is that this bill is dangerous. It is bad education for the public. It teaches that the way you stop hate is by having the police lay charges and putting a man in prison. That is not the way to make people behave better. I do not think anybody


Hate Propaganda
who saw what took place in the neighbouring country to the south, at the Democratic Party Convention in Chicago, will ever forget what happened. There we saw police power at its worst.
When you put power over the area we are discussing in the hands of the police, what happens? What happens When you put a man in prison for three months and he comes out again? Has that man changed his mind? Some good men here argued previously that capital punishment is not a deterrent to murder. How can they say, then, tonight that by threatening to put a man in jail because he may publish something will, according to the provisions of this bill, deter him from publishing that paper? That argument is utter nonsense. As I say, what happens when you put people in prison? You do not change their minds. We are getting away today from the whole concept of this old style criminal prosecution as a method of handling difficult human relations.
Why is this question raised in connection with criminal law? No international convention says that you must make laws in this matter or that they must be criminal laws. I submit the government has not the right to leap into amending the Criminal Code when there are to be explored two areas of alternative procedure such as I alluded to before. I would remind you again, Mr. Speaker, that this bill will bring a reduction in the amount of freedom of speech and freedom of the press that we have had in Canada up to this moment.
I will mention only the section granting the Attorney General discretion as to whether charges will be laid under the sections dealing with promoting or inciting hatred that may lead to a breach of the peace. The Attorneys General of the provinces are members of political parties. Our Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) is a member of the Liberal Party. He is a political animal, as is any other Member of Parliament. This power may be used by an unscrupulous Attorney General of a province, or the Attorney General of Canada, even against members of this institution and the public at large.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
The Minister of Justice said that there will be no rule of law under this bill. There will be law by political flat, and politicians have been known to bend with the wind. This means it is possible there will be one law for the French and one for the English, one for 
the Jews and one for the Arabs, one for the Catholics and one for the Protestants. This provision renders unacceptable all sections of the bill save those covering genocide.
I now wish to deal with some of the things that have happened recently. What did the Czechoslovakians say when the U.S.S.R. overran their country recently? One student put it in its proper perspective. The professors, the intellects and administrators remained aloof from the campus and university conflict and played safe. One student said he felt ashamed of himself "because we move and breathe, and say a few complacent words with tongues that are afraid to say our thoughts. We think we are alive. But we are dead". The only way to conquer hate is to change the heart of man, and the heart is controlled by the mind.
We ought to educate more than our Canadian students. We must educate our masters, the legislators and the citizens who in the end make educational institutions possible. We need to convince them of what they have forgotten-the importance of intellectual freedom if we are to have the kind of country most Canadians desire. We need to make our fellow citizens realize that freedom is not safety, but opportunity.
I referred in my opening remarks to a most powerful speech which was made in this chamber when our country was about to join the rest of the Commonwealth in the war against the Nazis. One member who spoke in this House opposed all other members. Thank God he had the right to do that! No doubt at that time he was subjected to ridicule and contempt. I am referring to Mr. Woodsworth. His daughter, in her book, quotes him as saying:
I do not care whether you think me an impossible idealist or a dangerous crank. I am going to take my place beside the children and these young people, because it is only as we adopt new policies that this world will be at all a livable place for our children who follow us. We laud the courage of those who go to the front; yes, I have boys of my own, and I hope they are not cowards, but if any one of those boys, not from cowardice but really through belief, is willing to take his stand on this matter and, if necessary, to face a concentration camp or a firing-squad, I shall be more proud of that boy than if he enlisted for the war.
Naturally people did not agree with him at that time, the point I want to make is that there was freedom of thought and freedom of speech. There were those who believed that the war was an imperialistic war, even when the truth was out that men, women and children were confined to concentration camps and ended up in gas chambers. There were

5S4S
those who still maintained it was an imperialistic war. Do they have the right to have those thoughts and speak out? Yes!
When our words may jeopardize the state, such as in time of war, there should be some control over the manner of speech, but thank God under normal conditions we have the right to express ourselves as we see fit.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: This afternoon I referred to the Bill of Rights. I shall not repeat what I said. I point out to the House that these things can be checked. When dealing with this bill, they must be put on the record. Section 60 of the Criminal Code deals with sedition. One hon. member said he had a lot of experience. I ask him to look up section 66 dealing with the punishment of a rioter. I also refer to section 67, the punishment of a member of an unlawful assembly; section 68, the reading the Riot Act; section 30, preventing a breach of peace; section 120, public mischief; section 150, offences tending to corrupt morals; section 160, the causing of disturbances; section 246, blasphemous libel; and section 166, spreading false news. In those sections of the Criminal Code we have all the protection we need. We can still maintain freedom of thought, freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of communication.
I wish to remind the House of the statement of Mr. Justice Rand in Boucher v. The King, 1951 Supreme Court Reports at page 284. It is interesting to note what Professor Scott said at that time. He said at the Legal and Constitutional Committee of the Senate, on April 29:
I will never forget, Mr. Chairman, how delighted I and all my friends were at the Supreme Court coming out with what we thought was a great clarification in the law, an increase in freedom of speech, yet still providing us in Canada with an adequate protection against real danger.
This was in relation to hate and malicious propaganda. His words can be found at page 202 of the report. At page 287 of the Supreme Court Report a description of the Boucher case is given. A religious sect published an article. Certainly it was mischievous and malicious. It created contempt, ridicule and broke the peace. The document was headed, "Quebec's burning hate for God and Christ: Freedom is the shame of Canada". The author was charged under the Padlock Law and put in jail. This is what Justice Rand said in dealing with sections of the Code:
Hate Propaganda
The definition of seditious intention as formulated by Stephen, summarized, is, (1) to bring into hatred or contempt, or to excite disaffection against, the King or the government and constitution of the United Kingdom, or either House of Parliament,-
I am not going to quote all that he said, but I want to make the point that the definition the learned Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada set out in 1951 in the Boucher case is basically identical to the protection this bill is supposed to afford. The law is there. As the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Hogarth) said, this is a vote-getting job and it threatens freedom of speech, freedom of thought and freedom of the press in this country. In other words, so far as law goes, freedom of the press is only the right to be let alone. The law itself does nothing affirmative; it leaves the whole task of promoting truth in the hands of authors, editors, reporters, publishers, broadcasters, motion picture producers and the rest of the communications people.
What will happen to books in the library which fall within the provisions of this bill? What will happen to a member who reads those books? Will he be charged under those sections and be liable to two years imprisonment? Is some Attorney General going to say to the member, "Because you read the book of Woodsworth or the book Out of the Night"-one of the most terrifying books I have ever read-"you will be charged"? What will happen to these books? I would like somebody to answer that question.
Unless they do something worth while, not a mite of truth has been attained or communicated. All that has happened is that a bunch of outsiders with official titles and police badges have been reduced to inaction. The law is kept away, but is truth any further ahead? Freedom of speech, and therefore freedom of the press-freedom from what? That is a good question but a much bigger question is, freedom for what?
I would like to ask some questions at this stage when dealing with this bill, which can become a very emotional and inflammatory issue: Is the government implementing this law with an eye on the next election? Has the government party an axe to grind? Are its decisions moved by emotion rather than intellect? I leave those questions with the House.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
I now wish to turn to another question which puzzles me. What will happen in connection with parliamentary immunity? We


Hate Propaganda
are fully protected against all kinds of civil actions for slander when we are speaking here. But are we protected against a criminal charge? If, in desperation, an hon. member were to assassinate somebody or commit assault resulting in bodily injury, actions covered by the criminal law, would he enjoy parliamentary immunity? I am sure he would not; this House would quickly move a resolution and the parliamentarian concerned would be tried in the courts of justice like any other citizen.
But what would happen to parliamentary immunity under this bill if any hon. member dared raise his voice in the House and express himself in a way which brought him within the formula laid down here? Could not a resolution be passed by supporters of a majority government which is awfully hungry for power and which has shown itself prepared to override parliament at every turn? These are the dangers of the bill before us. I ask what would happen to parliamentary immunity if it became law. The Attorney General has power to say whether an offence, if one has been committed, shall be subject to prosecution or not. Well, the Attorney General is a member of a political party; he is as much a political animal, as anyone else here. What might happen?
When the legislators stagnate, I am glad we have dissenters. But consider the actions of those who take a stand on the Viet Nam situation; those, for example, who defend the position of the United States. Do their words not lead to hatred? Do they not cause, on occasions, a breach of the peace? It is the process of dissent which gives rise to freedom. Just because there is a man like Beatty in Toronto, and a few other crackpots like him, is no reason for using a packet of dynamite when a few drops of mosquito oil would do.
One hon. member mentioned the CBC. What about the plays I see continually on the television screen? My children would never have known anything about Nazi Germany but for them. Every night there is one of these programs. Now there is one about Yugoslavia. They have got out one about fighting guerrillas. Are these programs hate literature? Are they directed against identifiable groups of people? What will happen to TV and radio? I must congratulate the national newspapers; they have been writing responsible editorials drawing attention to precisely the points I am raising now. I hope the press gallery of this institution will measure up to

its responsibility and make it known that the power to write, the power to find out the truth and the power to protest is vital to democracy even though its effect may not be appreciated for some time.
We have a right to be silent, too. That is a form of free speech. Take the example of an obscure Englishman named Francis Jenkes, in the time of Charles II. He had been brought before the court for daring to criticize the court itself-at least it was an identifiable group, made up of judges and bishops. When asked the question, "Who advised you in this matter?" he replied:
To name any particular person (if there were such) would be a mean and unworthy thing, therefore I desire to be excused all further answer to such questions.
What did the lords and bishops do? They threw him into a dungeon. But as a result, freedom was born. He stayed in prison all summer, but his stubbornness helped bring into being the great Habeas Corpus Act of 1679. What about the right of the press to remain silent as to their sources of information? What about the right of a Member of Parliament to remain silent as to his sources of information? Does free speech produce truth? The great writers and speakers mislead us a little because their inspiring words lead us to expect too much from discussion too soon. In great debates it is possibly true to say that no parliamentarian convinces more than a few. But we tend to ignore thousands of listeners and readers many of whom reshape their half-formed views because of what is said in the course of free speech, in the thrust of parliamentary debate or, indeed, in debate on the hustings.
To put it in another way, we know the tide is either coming in or going out, but we do not possess a tide-table. Very few people can accurately measure public opinion. Every now and then, of course, we encounter the speaker or the writer who is really an objectionable fellow. There is the position of the extremist. He may frighten a multitude of cautious and sensitive men who do not dare imperil their wives and children: it upsets their tranquility, which is essential to productive writing. We cannot know what is lost through the effect of repression of them, because it is not prosecuted but simply left unsaid. The agitator's contest is waged on behalf of these thoughtful men as well as for his own sake, and if he wins, the gain to truth will usually come more from their writing than from his. As


Hate Propaganda
Spinoza said, paring down the state until it is too small to harbour men of talent and integrity is not the answer.
I have already discussed the position of books and magazines. I could quote from the book "Out of the Night". If this is not hate literature, there never was any hate literature published. It should be read by every Canadian. It is in the library. Suppose somebody wants to read it to a group of people and it happens to fit into the terms of the bill before us: is this any reason for putting people in jail and limiting freedom of speech?
Prior to the Rebellion Losses Bill of 1837, those Canadian revolutionaries of Upper and Lower Canada won over the establishment by resolution, and they were no cowards. They did not fear political change. They did not exalt order at the cost of liberty. I should like to read what Professor Mewett said in reply to certain questions which I addressed to him in committee. I put this question to him: Suppose the chief of an Indian band calls attention to conditions on reserves in Alberta, attributes those conditions to the actions of the white man, and disturbs the peace by inciting protest. He is arrested because the Attorney General says he is causing his party and the government embarrassment, and he is charged under the terms of the "hate bill". My point is, Professor Mewett said this could happen. Later I asked him what could happen if the press-for example, the Calgary Herald or the Albertan-were to print what the chief had said. Professor Mewett told me that they, too, could be found guilty under the act.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired. Is there unanimous consent to allow the hon. member to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I will try not to be too long, Mr. Speaker. Somebody said I have just started. Well, this is an important subject, one to which everyone should direct his attention, particularly as far as this institution is concerned. I happen to have a strong distaste for certain things, including communism. I want to express that distaste in my own manner and my own oratory. But I would also defend as vigorously, and with all the ability at my command, the right of communistic groups not only to defend their philosophy but to propound it. How could an advocate take any other position?
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
Let me ask this question of record: Were the concentration camps in Siberia any different from those that were created by the Nazis, as far as human destruction of the soul and body and the breach of all our understanding of civil liberties are concerned? What brought these camps about? Under a dictatorship, free thought, free speech and free communication among the masses were denied to the people. And the people did not even believe that this was going on in their midst!
What are we going to do with the fuss that this bill will cause before it is implemented? The few charges which may arise, and investigations which may take place could, and will, stop freedom of speech. We might even convict a few conscientious men. Does the government want to create martyrs?
In 1589, when Udall was charged before the then known Privy Council, made up again of lords and bishops-the establishment-for inciting ridicule and contempt and creating hatred against the corrupt court that caused men to revolt, the bishop of the day, much like in "Anne of a Thousand Days", said to Udall that if he would not answer he must go to prison. He said: "It will go hard with you, for you must remain there until you admit it". Hon. members should read some of the famous cases and read books like "Blessings of Liberty" by Chafee which bring this question up to date. Do you know, Mr. Speaker, what Udall replied? His remarks are the very foundation of our freedom. He said: "I would rather go to prison with a good conscience than be at liberty with an ill one". The truth will out with freedom of speech. In a free country we punish men for the crimes they commit, but never for the opinions they have and rarely for the opinions they express.
Supporters of the bill will refer, as I have said, to crackpots like Beatty in Toronto who incite prejudice against immigrants and others. His failure to win any support shows that the confidence that is put in the voters of Canada is justified. It is justified when you have informed people in a democracy. As I have said, why waste dynamite when you can use insect powder?
I want to refer to two matters before I sit down, to bolster my argument. I want everybody who talks about voting with a free conscience, about not being bound by party discipline, to think about this. Let them read in Western Weekly Reports, 1920, the case of


Hate Propaganda
Rex v. Russell. I also mentioned in passing Woodsworth and referred to the time when unions in Winnipeg were being organized in order to try to get for the average working man the right to arbitrate and make deals in regard to wages, time and working conditions. In those days the courts were way behind the times. The law had not been changed in Canada and brought up to date as it had in England. This is what the court said in Russell's case:
What took place before the strike shows that the accused and his associate "Reds" aimed at something much more drastic.
I am not quoting a newspaper; this is the statement of a judge of the Manitoba Court of Appeal. He went on:
Their ultimate purpose, as declared in their public speeches, was revolution, the overthrow of the existing form of government in Canada-
Pausing there, why should they not overthrow the government? These men had gone overseas for four years during the first war. They had suffered in the trenches, had to contend with lice and all sorts of unpleasant things. They saw their friends killed and wounded. They came back to find no jobs and a society that would not look at them. As a result, they dared to incite, to cause ridicule, and perhaps create a little hate-because they must have had a little hate.
These men were tried before the courts and thrown into jail. They included Woodsworth and Russell, men who helped lay the cornerstones of the labour movement today and the labour legislation that I hear so much about from my friends to my left. I think they will go along with me, because one or two of them were in the committee with me on the bill. I do not know how they can justify the cause of the labour movement if they give their support to certain clauses of this bill.
Let me return to the Russell case and read what was said:
This was to be accomplished by general strikes, force and terror and, if necessary, by bloodshed. The Bolshevists in Russia were greeted and approved.
That is what the judge said. He was shocked. He went on:
A vast quantity of propaganda in the shape of pamphlets, booklets, printed papers, etc. was distributed by the conspirators-
Mr. Woodsworth had an unusual library, one that was filled with material which gave him a deep and dedicated sense of feeling for humanity, a sense of feeling for men who had
IMr. Woolliams.]
served in the war and for the workingman. But the authorities said this was awful. They said this man had this literature which he read to the crowd, thus inciting the crowd to break the peace. As a result they were put in jail. This is not a story taken from a newspaper or a magazine hastily written. This is not a speech made by a crackpot; it was written by one of the judges of the land at that time. The judge continued:
All of this contained matter intended to excite discontent and stir up class hatred-
Perhaps these men were glad that something was stirred up, because they were tired of going home hungry. They were tired of being sworn at and being fired. They were tired of working for 20 cents an hour. He continued:
The agitation prior to and during the strike showed no desire on the part of the leaders to bring about by constitutional means an improvement in the position of the wage-earner or by securing for him of a greater share in the fruits of his labour. Writing to brother socialists prior to the strike the accused contemptuously refers to the rank and file of the working men as the "plugs."
This engendered hatred and he was thrown in jail. What did Parliament do? They accepted the judgment which was confirmed in the court of appeal. I will not read any more of this case; it is there for all to read. It follows the same kind of line. The judgment was put in the wastepaper basket because the legislators took their responsibilities and passed the sort of laws that this House and this Parliament would today pass with ease.
Let me refer to a great Liberal who met with an accident which caused his death, Blair Fraser. He talked in the same vein as I. He said he would go along with the first clauses dealing with genocide, but then he said:
The Cohen committee suggested making it an offence, punishable by up to two years in jail, to "incite hatred or contempt against any identifiable group, where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace." The inciter would thus be the guilty party, even if the breach of the peace were committed by the group he was slandering, as has happened at neo-Nazi rallies in Toronto.
This sort of thing is a lot trickier. It recalls the famous case of Boucher vs. The King in 1950 and 1951-
That is the case to which I have referred.
-when after two separate hearings the Supreme Court of Canada quashed the conviction of a Quebec Witness of Jehovah who had been convicted in his own province of "seditious Label" for distributing the Witnesses' tract-


That is the magazine I have described. In directing the acquittal of Boucher, Mr. Justice Rand in his judgment said:
"Freedom in thought and speech and disagreement in ideas and beliefs, on every conceivable subject, are of the essence of our life. The clash of critical discussion on political, social and religious subjects has become too deeply the stuff of daily experience to suggest that mere ill-will, as a product of controversy, can strike down the latter with illegality."
How the cabinet-
He is referring to a group of members on the other side of the House.
-is going to get around this difficulty we shall not know until the legislation is introduced.
And the cabinet has not got around it. Then he went on to say that many private bills against hate literature had been introduced in the House. I end with these words. Today I was shocked. Here we are debating something which, as far as I am concerned, is established fact-freedom of speech and expression not only in the House of Commons but throughout the nation; the right of freedom of the press and freedom of radio and television. We are engaging in this kind of debate, nevertheless. I asked for two assistants to interpret the law as I see it, before I moved my motion in the committee, and I was refused.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
I spent the whole Easter holiday briefing myself, because I do not have behind me a staff like some of the ministers. As I see the law, the individuals of this country are fully protected. We are faced with many problems such as housing and the problem of no trade in respect of wheat and petroleum. There is a large gap in foreign policy between the United States and Canada which can wreck the whole economy. There is rising unemployment and there is inflation. If this government would turn its mind to the just society, clean up the ghettoes and do something for the average man, there would not be the hatred there is in the hearts of men, or the desire to incite, because they would be getting on with their jobs.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Never in history since Confederation have we had such a government. All governments use a little windowdressing, like the bride to look beautiful for public opinion. Never, however, has there been a government which has used such window-dressing as has been used in respect of hate literature or amendments to the Crimi-
Hate Propaganda
nal Code. This government should get on with the economic problems of this nation. Never in my life have I seen so much unrest in this nation. There are separatists in the west and there are separatists in Quebec. There is trouble in the Maritimes and everywhere else. This government was elected on the question of unity. It must get on the move. It has a majority and we cannot drive it from office by a vote, but there are a few Liberal backbenchers whom we must admire. We heard one this afternoon. Let me say to the government that dissension in its own ranks will grow until the government is driven from office.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, this is a bill which divides people who have worked together for many years, people who have worked in the field of civil liberties and in the field of the right of the freest expression of opinion. I respect the position of people such as Professor Frank Scott of McGill University, who has been in the forefront of every fight against any attempt to restrict the right of any person to express his views, whether those views deal with religion or, in the case of Professor Scott, with politics when he dealt with the Padlock Law or in the field of books when he dealt with the case of "Lady Chartterley's Lover." I respect the views expressed before the committee by Professor Arthur of Osgoode Hall. I respect these gentleman and give them a great deal of consideration. I am sorry I cannot agree with them. I am sorry I take issue with them, because I think this bill is necessary.
I was surprised and delighted to hear the speech of the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams). I found his speech interesting when he quoted so approvingly from the speeches made in difficult times by people like my old teacher from Winnipeg, the former member for Winnipeg North Centre and founder of the CCF, Mr. J. S. Woods-worth. I found it interesting to hear him mention the cases which arose out of the 1919 strike. I grew up in Winnipeg and I know what effect this strike had on Winnipeg and western Canada for so many years.
In the years to come I will be interested to see whether the hon. member for Calgary North will be as quick and as vocal in defending the rights of those who may strike in the 1970s or those who may express views which do not find favour with the majority of


Hate Propaganda
the people in the 1970s. I do not want to be too critical of the hon. member for Calgary North, but I heard him speak on the side of what may be called the establishment, and knowing the views he seemed to be espousing tonight I find it difficult to understand his position.
I can understand those who are concerned about this bill and feel it may infringe upon the rights of people to express their views. People such as Professor Arthur and Professor Scott have a deep commitment to civil liberties: they have worked to defend the right of all those who want to express themselves, not just those who want to say things with which most of the people of Canada agree. I have respect for Professor Scott and the kind of things he has done over the years. I think that people who express views with which most of us do not agree have a right to their opinions.
I think those who have been labelled hippies have a right to their opinions and their way of life. In my own and in other cities I have found the police have taken the position that these people are not very welcome and are not very useful. They have adopted methods with which I do not agree. I do not agree with the methods used by all those who are critical of the involvement of the United States in the war in Viet Nam, but I join with those who insist that those people have a right to express their view here in Canada. If I lived in the United States I would say they have a right to express their point of view there.
I disagree with many of those who are associated with what is commonly called the New Left, the Maoists, the Trotskyists, and so on. All my life I have opposed that point of view. But I defend their right to say what they think and put forward their point of view even though others may strongly disagree with them. So I understand the position of most of the people who are opposed to this bill, because I am a civil libertarian. I think I have demonstrated both in the House and outside my concern about what I consider to be these zealous activities on the part of the police, the Crown prosecutors or indeed the courts. I shall continue to do so, and I want others to have the right to continue to do these things even if the majority of the people do not agree with them.
I do not believe, however, that freedom of speech means licence. I do not believe this bill will prevent the expression of controversial or what some people, and even I, might con-

sider to be offensive modes of speaking or writing. We already have slander and libel laws under which a person who is falsely accused, defamed or injured, either in speech or in writing, can go to the courts and can claim damages and ask for an injunction prohibiting the type of malicious, false accusation which has been made against him.
Although I do not place myself in the same position as many hon. members who are trained in the legal profession, I do understand that this bill proposes to do for groups what has already been done and what has worked so well over many years for individuals. It proposes, as I understand it, to protect groups from the type of dishonest, malicious and harmful criticism which is now prohibited by law against an individual. I think that is not only fair but is necessary.
Of course, we are proposing a limitation on complete freedom of expression. But can we really argue that there ought not to be any limitations, in light of the history of the past half-century? We are not living in the golden age of liberalism when in some countries like Great Britain people could say almost anything they wanted without hurting anybody.
e (8:50 p.m.)
After all, need I remind members of this House of Commons what has happened in the world? Need I remind Members of Parliament that in the United States of America there are people who so hate and despise American citizens whose colour is not white that they write and speak about Negroes, Puerto Ricans and Mexican Americans in the kind of language which has led to murder, to rape, to lynchings and to burning of whole communities?
This is a fact of history which I think most Canadians know. Need I remind Members of Parliament of what happened in Europe during World War II when Hitler decided that certain people who were not members of the master race should be, and they were, exterminated? At that time millions of people, Jews, Poles, Ukrainians, were murdered in gas ovens, were shot and were burnt simply because of their racial origin. These are facts of life. That hatred lingers on.
Who would have believed that in a communist country-I have spoken about my dislike of and opposition to communism many times both inside and outside this chamber-racism would exist? Not many of us, as anti-communist as we were, really believed that the communists with all their faults could be guilty of


racism; yet the 2,000 Jews who went back to Poland after World War II are now leaving. They are being forced out for one simple reason-because they are Jews. Racism exists in communist Poland as it existed before and during World War II in fascist Poland.
Are we so free of racism in Canada? Who is there in this chamber, particularly those who come from western Canada, who has not heard or read expressions about Canadian Indians or Canadian Metis which would put to shame some of the worst material published in the United States about black Americans? These are facts with which we have to live, and because of this we support the principle of the bill.
I said earlier that some civil libertarians oppose this bill. While I disagree with them, I respect them. There are many civil libertarians, people who have put many years into defending the right of the unpopular, who are supporting this bill. I have had many differences of opinion with the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and I will have many in the future, but the Prime Minister played a very honourable role in the province of Quebec at a time when it was not very popular to oppose the former Premier, Mr. Duplessis. The Prime Minister was on a committee which studied this question, the report of which led to the presentation of this bill. The hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan) was an active member of the Civil Liberties Association in Ontario before he came to this House. He was on that committee.
My colleague, the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) has a long record, which I need not go into tonight, of defending people who are unpopular, who are being persecuted and prosecuted by the establishment. He is defending this bill. I say they have done so because the evidence is that the kind of thing about which this bill talks, hate propaganda against people simply because of their race, colour or religion, is being disseminated in this country. It is being disseminated in large quantities in virtually every province. Because this is so, and because it creates division and hatred for Canadian citizens, I believe this bill is necessary.
In passing this bill we will be joining a host of other countries which have been faced with the same problem and have attempted to deal with it in part at least by the enactment of legislation. Great Britain, a country to which we always refer when we discuss par-
Hate Propaganda
liamentary democracy, freedom and human rights, has, after centuries of assuming that legislation is not necessary, now passed legislation. Sweden and other countries too numerous to mention have also passed legislation.
They have done it because they looked at the record, they looked at the history of the last 50 years and realized how deep is this hatred, how pathological, how destructive is this kind of feeling and how necessary is this legislation. When we pass this bill I say "when" because I am confident that we will- we will actually be putting into effect the United Nations Declaration on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination which was passed unanimously by the UN General Assembly on November 23, 1963.
I do not expect that the passage of this bill will mean the end of all hate propaganda. I know that we will be putting a difficult task in the laps of the police, the Crown prosecutors and the judges. I know there will be divisions. I am certain that some judges will not go as far as I think they should, and I am also certain that some judges will go further than I think they should in interpreting this bill and in dealing with examples of what will be called hate literature. That is part of society, that is part of a democratic way of life.
I want to be honest. I am not certain that the provisions of this bill will be very effective, but even knowing that this may be so I support it because it seems to me that in passing the bill we, the Parliament of Canada speaking for the people of Canada, will be making a declaration and will be saying to the people of Canada: We believe that it is not only wrong, not only immoral but illegal for any person in Canada to attack, to vilify and to incite hatred and violence against any other Canadian because of his race, colour or religion. Because I believe that that kind of declaration will be useful and will in itself be an educating force which can be held up as an example to all the people of Canada, I intend to vote for this bill as it is at the present time.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, we are speaking now to an amendment proposed by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) who enjoys the confidence of his party, the official opposition, as their official spokesman in matters relating to the administration of justice and the review of the attorney generalship in the Department of Justice. I think we ought to

Hate Propaganda
analyse, before probing the substance of his amendment, just what it would do. It purports, on the face of it, to eliminate a few lines of the bill. But what it does is truncate and absolutely vitiate the bill, and if adopted by the House would kill the bill. I do not think we can prevaricate about that; that is exactly what it will do.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
There are three offences contemplated in Bill C-3. The first is found under new section 267A, which embraces the offence of advocating or promoting genocide. The second is found in new section 267B(1), which is the proposed offence of public incitement of hatred where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace. The third offence is found in new section 267B(2) providing for the wilful promotion of hatred or contempt.
The amendment proposed by the hon. member for Calgary North, presumably on behalf of the party for which he is the official spokesman, would eliminate two of these three offences.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Right.


John Napier Turner: It would leave in the bill only the proposed offence of advocating or promoting genocide. It would completely strike from the bill the proposed offence of public incitement of hatred, and the proposed offence of the wilful promotion of hatred.
That being said, Mr. Speaker, let me now say that we are at the report stage of the bill in the House of Commons, debating the report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. I said previously, when speaking to the amendment proposed by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Hogarth), the government accepts the amendments proposed in committee. Some of those amendments were proposed by members of parties that I do not represent. Some of those amendments were carried with the support of members with whom I am associated.
None the less, I believe very firmly in the committee system, allowing Members of Parliament to exercise their individual judgment, and I believe very firmly that in this particular instance the bill, without being sacrificed in substance, has been distinctly improved in detail, particularly in so far as there has been provision for new defences, a new balance protecting the right of free speech. I wish to outline briefly for the House what those amendments in committee were which we 

accept. The amendments appear clearly on the copies of the bill reprinted as amended and reported by the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
The first amendment is found, of course, in the genocide section where the word "means" was substituted for the word "includes", in order to restrict the definition of genocide to the two particular acts that are set forth in the bill, namely, killing members of an identifiable group and "deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction." I think that restriction, that precision adds clarity to the bill and in so adding precision protects the position of a potential accused.
The next amendment relates to section 267B where the words "or contempt" found in the combination of words "hatred or contempt" were dropped from the formulation of the proposed new offence of publicly inciting hatred, and they were also dropped from the formulation of the proposed new offence of the wilful promotion of hatred in section 267B(2). The omission of the reference to contempt focuses the real emphasis of the bill on the dissemination of hatred, and the members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs were unanimously in favour of the removal of the reference to contempt.
I think those hon. members who have had training in the law are aware that the common law definition of libel has always been that type of statement which would tend to bring another person into hatred, ridicule or contempt. I know that the special committee under the chairmanship of Dean Cohen, when it presented its recommendations to the then Minister of Justice, the late Hon. Guy Favreau, recommended that the wilful promotion of hatred or contempt ought to constitute the offence, but the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs has now eliminated the words "or contempt" to make it quite clear that we are dealing with hate propaganda and hate literature, just as the Cohen committee recommended the elimination of the word "ridicule" with respect to the offence of the promotion of hatred.
The third amendment is found in new section 267B(2) dealing with the communication of statements "other than in private conversation." Those words are underlined in the copies of the bill now in the hands of hon. members. The communication of statements in private conversation has been excluded from the ambit of this particular offence. This amendment was moved by the hon. member


for York South (Mr. Lewis). I think that no civilized person would condone the wilful promotion of hatred against an identifiable group, no matter what form that promotion takes, but there is something to be said for leaving the condemnation of such conduct in private conversation to the ordinary social sanctions of the community rather than to the sanctions of the criminal law, and I am confident that the determination of what constitutes a private conversation can well be left to the sound sense of a judge and, in proceedings by indictment, a jury.
In section 267B hon. members will notice a new subsection 3. The defences provided under the original subsection 3 have been revised and an additional defence has been provided by paragraph (d). This entire subsection was proposed by the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Murphy) and accepted, I believe, virtually unanimously by the committee.
There are two other substantial amendments. There is an addition of a new subsection, 267B(5), added to make it clear that the forfeiture provision in subsection 4 of this section does not apply to communication facilities. You can seize the telephone for the purposes of evidence, but you cannot seize the telephone merely because it has been used to communicate a statement. Finally, there was a technical change made in the in rem proceedings, as they are known, dealing with the seizure of property under section 267C(8) (c).
I think the House should review at this stage the defences that were added by the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, and that were rendered more precise, because in analysing this bill those who oppose it have failed to illustrate and emphasize to the House the defences that are available to an individual citizen and his free exercise of speech. These defences are set out in section 267B(3), with regard to the offence of the wilful promotion of hatred. First, no person shall be convicted "if he establishes that the statements communicated were true." Further, no person shall be convicted "if, in good faith, he expressed or attempted to establish by argument an opinion upon a religious subject." Therefore, any bona fide, far-ranging expression of opinion on any religious subject is sufficient to take that statement outside the purview of this bill.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: How would you establish the truth of a religious statement?
Hate Propaganda


John Napier Turner: Thirdly, no person shall be convicted "if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true." If the statement were made in the course of debate or in the course of discussion the basis of which was for the public benefit because it involved discussion of public affairs, if it was a subject of public interest, if the statement were made in the reasonable belief that it was true even if it were not true, that amendment provides, as in an ordinary libel action, a complete defence to any prosecution under the offence of wilful promotion of hatred.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
Finally, there was a new defence added at the instance of the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie. If in good faith a person intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada, if the purpose of the statement or communication was to attempt to persuade his fellow citizens to remove the cause of that hatred or dissension, he has a defence. The situation the hon. member for Calgary North was talking about in his speech this evening in defence of his own amendment is now eliminated, that argument having been made by members of the committee and now rendered needless by the addition of the fourth defence in paragraph (d). If the Indian population in Alberta, to which he referred, feels it has a grievance against the white man in Alberta or in Canada, if it states this grievance for the purpose of removing the reason for the grievance there is, I would submit, a defence under this subsection.
Then there is the added protection in those two offences relating to genocide in section 267A, and the wilful promotion of hatred in 267B(2), there is the precaution of requiring that no proceeding can be taken under either of those offences without the consent of the provincial Attorney General. That restriction is not placed upon the second offence of public incitement of hatred and contempt likely to lead to a breach of the peace. Where a breach of the peace is involved obviously you have a potential unlawful assembly or a potential riot, and you have no time to try to get the consent of the Attorney General of the province before making an arrest.
In the offence of advocating or promoting genocide, in the offence of the wilful promo-


Hate Propaganda
tion of hatred by any statement other than private conversation, before prosecution can issue the consent of the Attorney General of the province is necessary. This means all vexation proceedings, mischievous proceedings, frivolous proceedings would not be available to a private citizen who wanted to undertake prosecution.
I know the hon. member for Calgary North has a certain suspicion of Attorneys General. He called them political animals, and it is true that in our country they tend to be members of a cabinet, as I am currently a member of the government of Canada and the Attorney General of Alberta is a member of the cabinet of Alberta. But I think the hon. member knows as well as I do that the tradition under the British parliamentary system is strong and firm on this particular point, that where an Attorney General is dealing with the administration of justice and criminal law he has to exercise his judgment on whether to initiate a prosecution or withdraw it on the basis of his own estimation and evaluation of the public interest. He cannot be bound by a decision of his cabinet, of the government to which he belongs. In fact, he should not be so bound, and if he is he can be subject to the condemnation of the House of Commons or the provincial legislature. It has happened. In the first Labour government in Great Britain the then Attorney General was suspected of having withdrawn a prosecution for political reasons. It provoked a crisis in the House of Commons at Westminster and the first Labour government fell. I believe that was in 1926.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, would the minister permit a question?


John Napier Turner: Yes.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I did not want to interrupt the minister so I let him finish. Maybe it was an unfortunate word to use, but he said that I was "suspicious" of Attorneys General and Ministers of Justice. I am not suspicious of them as a class or group; I only say that they are human beings. That is what I said. I know that the member for Calgary South (Mr. Mahoney) is always talking from his seat and not from his mouth, but the fact is that I am saying that as long as you have such men, whether he be Attorney General or in any other executive position he is subject to human behaviour. I know the Minister of Justice would want to be fair and say that there is no suggestion that I am suspicious or 
I am using any terms of his bill in reference to the position he holds.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I am sorry, but the hon. member's remarks were totally incomprehensible to me and I could not have interrupted him if I had wanted to.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That is understandable.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: I did not do it. It was another member on this side who seemed to understand what he was saying.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I shall make no comment on the fratricide between the two members for Calgary. I may say, however, that I am glad the hon. member for Calgary North is not imputing that any Attorney General of this country, federal or provincial, would in any way use his office in the administration of justice for political motivation. That cannot be done; it would subject him to the censure of the House or the legislature. The principle was clearly set out in the House of Commons at Westminster by the then Attorney General, Sir Hartley Shawcross. This principle is still binding on the Attorney General at Westminster and I would consider myself so bound. The hon. member suggested we are human. If he can indicate to me any way of running a free society other than by human beings, I wish he would suggest it.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I again rise on a point of privilege. We are governed by the rule of law and not by the rule of subject. The Minister of Justice, as a Rhodes scholar and legal man, ought to know that.


John Napier Turner: I am not
going to be misled by that sophistry and I am sure the House is not going to be misled by it. The rule of law has to be interpreted by human beings, and that is the only way it is going to be done.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: And applied by them.


John Napier Turner: And applied by them, as the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) has reminded me. The hon. member for Calgary North suggested in his speech that the present criminal law was adequate to cover the purposes of this bill. He cannot have it two ways: he cannot suggest the bill is unnecessary and yet pernicious. If it is unnecessary, the criminal law that currently applies must to his


mind be pernicious. If the law is presently inadequate, then his argument in these terms might have some value. I am suggesting to him that the terms of the present criminal law, as it has been interpreted to me by the advisers upon whom I rely, are inadequate to cover the purposes of this bill. I think I am supported in that by the conclusions drawn in by special committee under the chairmanship of Dean Cohen, which made those points.
I should like to refer the House briefly to the three offences. The first offence is that of advocating or promoting genocide. Existing criminal law in the Code prohibits homicide of an individual person. Whereas I suppose it is conceivable that one could have homicide of a group of people within the existing terms of the law, the bill deems it necessary to create a new offence of advocating or promoting genocide, because there is now no offence in the Code of advocating or promoting the homicide of a group of people. These are acts which are clearly not forbidden at present in the Criminal Code of Canada.
When one turns to the second offence of public incitement of hatred and contempt likely to lead to a breach of the peace, I am advised there is a gap in the law today which derives from the fact that it does not penalize the initiating party who incites to hatred and contempt with a likelihood of violence, whether or not intended and whether or not violence takes place.
An hon. member referred to the case of Boucher v. the King, (1950) 1st DLR at page 267. The burden of that case was that the protection of groups under the provisions of the criminal law extends only to certain situations where a prosecution can prove violence was intended, whether or not the violence was a likely result of the action. The law is based on intention not on a likelihood of result following cause, effect following cause. It is the intention which is considered to be the necessary element under the present law as interpreted by the Boucher case. This would be, to our mind, unduly restrictive as applied to public incitement of hatred.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
I know of no case, Mr. Speaker, in which a court has convicted a person who used insulting language that resulted in a disturbance where there was no intention on the part of the speaker to provoke a breach of the peace. This is probably a good instance where, the policy of the bill having been decided on, it is 22218-61
Hate Propaganda
much better and fairer for the legislators to say expressly what the offence is, rather than to debate the possibility that the conduct may already, and perhaps inadvertently, be proscribed.
The third offence, the wilful promotion of hatred, is, again, on the advice I have received, not covered within the present provisions of the Criminal Code. If you turn to those sections of the Code dealing with defamatory libel, commencing with section 248, you will see that there is no specific protection extended to groups. The committee had this to say on the subject:
-the defining words in section 248 preclude any protection for groups-
The reason is, of course, that the defamatory libel must be against the person and not against a group of persons. It is the word "person" that is used in present section 248 of the Code. Of course, the members of a group are still protected as individuals against a libel in collective form, but to establish the publisher's liability it would be necessary for the prosecution to show that the libel exposed every member of the group individually to hatred, contempt or ridicule.
The committee also considered section 166 dealing with the publication of false statements likely to cause injury or mischief to a public interest, and section 315(1) penalizing the sending of false information with intent to injure or alarm. Both these sections, in the opinion of the committee, have only very limited application to hate propaganda, for two reasons: first, both require the Crown to prove that the libeller knows that the matter is false. Not only is this a heavy burden for the Crown to meet, but it is undoubtedly true that many purveyors of group libel are sick or misguided men who thoroughly believe in the truth of their statements. Second, both apparently apply only to straight matters of fact and would have no application to any matters of opinion. The committee concluded with these words:
In sum then, it is evident that the Criminal Code, even on the widest interpretation, does little or nothing to protect groups from the evils of hate propaganda.
I know, Mr. Speaker, that there have been philosophic objections to this bill. I want to deal with them as my final point. The philosophic objection to this bill has predicated itself on a certain set of assumptions about the right of free speech in a democratic society. Accordingly, as the argument goes and as the bill's detractors say, the bill infringes on


Hate Propaganda
free speech and arrests the freedom of expression so necessary to a democratic polity.
This kind of verbal gamesmanship is misleading and is based on three hidden but false assumptions. First, it suggests that the arguments in respect of the bill must resolve themselves in terms of whether one is for or against free speech-categorically for or categorically against free speech. Second, it suggests that the right of free speech is an absolute and unfettered right; and third, it questions the validity of the criminal sanction as an educative process. Let me deal with each of these assumptions which form the basis of the philosophic opposition to the bill.
First, I believe one's attitude toward this bill cannot, or should not depend on whether one is for or against free speech. I, of course, believe every hon. member of the House is in favour of free speech, freedom of expression and freedom of assembly. One's position respecting the bill cannot be construed as an automatic label of one's civil libertarian position. The hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) has spoken of civil libertarians who are against the bill, but he also spoke with equal authority and experience of civil libertarians who are in favour of the bill. There are respected libertarians who have argued on both sides of this particular piece of legislation. The question is not whether one is for or against free speech but, rather, what are the permissible limits on free speech; what are the permissible contours of freedom of speech and expression?
To put the question another way, to put it in absolute terms and say that if one is for the bill one is against freedom of speech, and if one is against the bill one is for freedom of speech, is to display a type of verbal sleight of hand, a type of verbal gamesmanship. It is what Professor Harold Lasswell of Yale law school has called "the cloud of normative ambiguity", because it derives the normative value by declaring that support of this legislation is tantamount to infringing on freedom of expression and is therefore anti-civil libertarian and even anti-democratic, rather than appreciating the morality of the behaviour being proscribed and the normative value of the principle being affirmed. The principle being affirmed is that no democratic process should oblige any of its members to subject themselves to verbal maiming or lethal language which cannot possibly have any intrinsic redeeming value or advantage, either in 
terms of freedom of speech or the democratic process.
There is a second false assumption on the part of those opposing this bill. I am not saying that the opposition to this bill is not sincere or is not well-founded. I am not being categorical and saying that the bill is a good or bad bill, because when we talk about the subtle balance between freedom of expression on the one hand and the abuse of that freedom by the dissemination of hatred on the other, no one can be absolutely sure or absolutely categorical that he is right. It is a question of value judgment; it is a question of feeling. I submit to Your Honour that the members of the government and the members of the committee who studied this bill tried to achieve a reasonable balance, a reasonable reconciliation, so that the conflicting legitimate interests of freedom of expression on the one hand and the protection of reputation and group identity on the other are balanced. This is a very difficult thing to achieve and we have tried to do our best.
We must realize that nowhere in our constitution and legal practice, and nowhere in our constitutional tradition is there any sanction of the concept of absolute liberty. There is no such thing as an absolute freedom of speech; there is no such thing as an absolute right of assembly. We are dealing with a right which we are trying to enhance without infringing on the rights and privileges of other people. If the hon. member for Calgary North says that the Bill of Rights is impliedly against this piece of legislation, I say that that argument is a bit of sophistry. True, the Bill of Rights talks in terms of freedom of expression, but there is nothing in the Bill of Rights that says there is an absolute freedom of expression.
There is nothing in the constitution of the United States to say that there is an absolute freedom of expression or freedom of assembly. Indeed, no democratic process, Mr. Speaker, could categorically licence any absolute rights-and the hon. member for Winnipeg North pointed out clearly the difference between a right and the abuse of that right by licence-without endangering the viability of the democratic process itself. The history of democratic society is the history of the balancing of legitimate interests and legitimate rights as between various members and classes of that society and between members of that society and the government by which they are governed.


The concept of absolute freedom is a perversion of the rule of law. It is the replacement of the rule of law by the rule of absolutism. The tradition of the enhancement and the enlargement of the right of freedom of expression-the hon. member for Calgary North cited some of the landmarks that have enhanced and enlarged the right of freedom of speech-is part of a parallel process whereby there have been placed at the same time necessary limitations and restrictions on the legitimacy of freedom of speech.
The criminal law of Canada, modelled upon the criminal law of England, authorizes freedom of speech but not in absolute terms. It does so within permissible contours, within permissible parameters. One need only refer to the present rules regarding defamation, blasphemy, sedition, libel or scurrilous material to appreciate the attempt, made throughout the history of Canada and under the rules of the common law, to draw boundaries between what is permissible and what is not permissible speech rather than to speak in terms of freedom of speech in absolute terms. From time immemorial there have been limitations on the freedom of speech and our laws of libel and slander are examples of this.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
We are merely broadening, in the main purview of this bill, the law of libel and slander to include group libel and group slander. I have no right to defame my neighbour's reputation. There must be no right to promote the hatred of people on the basis of race or religion, the hatred of people who are distinguishable by colour or by their ethnic origin, let alone advocate their total annihilation or advocate genocide. No democratic process worthy of its name can licence the advocacy of genocide in the name of the democratic process itself. No claim to freedom of speech can legitimate the incitement of racial hatred and condone the breakdown of social order in the name of free speech.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, one must reject the charge that this legislation involves an invalid use of the criminal sanction. Such an objection not only fails, in my submission, to appreciate the intrinsic value of this legislation in respect of outlawing hate propaganda itself, but ignores the educational value of the legal process in general and the criminal sanction in particular. The measure of our laws, it has been said, is the measure of our civilization. If we are to have justice in socie-
Hate Propaganda
ty, then we must begin with just laws. Nowhere is this more important than in the realm of criminal law. It is here that the most fundamental values of life, liberty and dignity are to be protected and sanctioned, and it is here that the measure of our commitment to these values will be tested.
I do not consider the criminal law to be just an agency of social control. I do not consider it to be merely what Herbert Packer called the controlled use of power in society. I consider it to be a set of articulated values by which civilized men tend to regulate their lives and measure their society. That being so, this law will represent part of those articulated values by which we tend to regulate our conduct as free citizens in Canada.
This law is not just a technical body of rules. It tends within the conduct that is prescribed to articulate the values by which we Canadians seek to live. The criminal law is not merely a sanction or control process. It is reflective and declaratory of the moral sense of a community and the total integrity of a community. It seeks not merely to proscribe, but to educate. It seeks to set forth a threshold of tolerance and standards of minimum order and decency.
I echo what many members have said in committee and in this House. One cannot legislate a community to love or even eradicate by legislation the promotion of feelings of hatred. But one can control certain kinds of public hate dissemination and hate activity. One can put this country on record as declaring that the conscience of the Canadian community will not tolerate that kind of activity. One can put the Canadian community on record as subscribing to the international conventions, which other hon. members have referred to, under the auspices of the United Nations.
What this bill hopes and seeks to articulate is that we condemn the social evil of the deliberate, wilful dissemination of racial hatred in this country and elsewhere. We consider it to be a poison in a civilized society. We consider it to be contrary to the collective moral sense and total integrity of the Canadian community. We consider in the global village in which we are living, which is almost claustrophobic, that the exploitation of hostility in man and the skilful promotion of hatred must be combatted. As such, in its ultimate sense the criminal law sanction, and in this context the bill outlawing the dissemination of hate-and I make no prediction as


Hate Propaganda
to how successful this legislation is going to be; I would be a fool to try to do it and so would any other member-is a conscientious attempt on the part of the government, and I hope of Parliament itself, to outlaw as an articulation of the total integrity of the Canadian community the dissemination of hate in this country and throughout the world, proclaiming our commitment to humanity, humanism and to the rule of law.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, one would think from the eloquent words of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) that feuding, fighting, fussing and inciting to hatred, ridicule, contempt and the like were rampant in the streets of the global village. This measure has been before the other place for two sessions and before us for this session. I have yet to hear any discussions regarding any instances where the thoughts embodies in the bill have any particular application to this country. I am serious: I have yet to hear where it has any application to this country.
I know we receive in our mailboxes publications from the two opposing sides dealing with events that are taking place 5,000 miles to the east. I suppose those reports that we receive are the communication of statements which are supposed to incite our hatred of an identifiable group which is likely to lead to a breach of the peace, yet I have not heard of these groups seriously coming to blows with each other. I have not heard that these publications, which might be deemed to wilfully promote hatred, have led to any serious disturbance in Canada. They probably led to a discussion or some process of thoughts in our own minds as to whether we should take one side or the other or, sensibly as Canadians, we should try to find a mutual way to resolve a dispute in some other part of the world that, if not resolved, could lead us into disaster. In short, propound with regard to Bill C-3 what I call the Hatfield and McCoy theory, that we have not seen that feud transferred to Canada. If we are not using atomic weapons, we are using a great deal of parliamentary puff to try to dispel things that largely do not exist. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I am very sceptical. It remains to be proven to me during this debate that the exercise we are going through is meaningful.
I can agree with the first part of the formula in Bill C-3 without any difficulty. I think it should probably be passed in about five minutes without anybody giving too IMr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton).]
much attention to it. I do not think anyone in Canada would advocate or promote genocide. However, if a person, short of the lunatic stage, is inclined to promote genocide in Canada, we must deal with him or her promptly. I have my doubts about the purpose of Bill C-3. I know it is the pet child of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). The foundling has found its way into the lap of the Minister of Justice. The hon. gentleman is doing the best he can with it. He very properly raised it for a parliamentary blessing, but still I have my doubts.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
This seems to be a bill dealing with thought. It is really an attempt to exercise control over the process of thought, imposing criminal sanctions against thought rather than against action. Most of our Criminal Code deals with actions by one person against another. But look at what is contained here in section 267B: the key words are "communicating statements which incite hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace." First, one has to assess what is meant by the communication of a statement and then somebody has to decide whether the mere fact of such a communication is an incitement to violent action. Finally, one has to determine whether it is likely to lead to a breach of the peace.
Outside this chamber we have all been subjected in the last year to an unusual number of jokes dealing with Newfoundlanders. To most of us who do not have the benefit of coming from that island they may seem very funny. Even if we are close to it, they may seem funny. Though I have never seen a Newfoundlander take exception to these jokes, they may seem less amusing to those directly concerned.
At one time the vogue was for Polish stories. Then it was Italian stories, or Indian stories, or black stories, or something. Is this sort of thing a communication of hatred, or ridicule, or contempt? Is it something designed to bring about a donnybrook? Is it something designed to bring about a belly-laugh? I suppose it would depend upon the circumstances-whether one told the story in a pub in St. John's at midnight or whether one told it somewhere in Alberta. Do we, by telling these stories, communicate hatred, ridicule or contempt? What happens when people tell these strories against themselves? I suggest a jury could look at such statements


and reach entirely different conclusions in different parts of Canada.
Perhaps I have belaboured this point more than it should be belaboured. The point I am trying to make is that a thought expressed in one part of Canada might be taken to mean something entirely different in another part of Canada. This is why it is dangerous to attempt to deal, as I think this bill does, with what would essentially be thought-crimes. A person expressing a certain opinion may well do so for reasons which have nothing to do with inciting a breach of the peace. He may have said those things with his tongue in his cheek. Yet the result could still be a donny-brook, it could be a belly-laugh, or it could merely lead to people saying, "Go away. Don't disturb us with that kind of nonsense. We know you are full of hot air." This is what any of these so-called crimes could, in effect, amount to, depending on the circumstances of utterance. For example, what is said over television today or on the radio today produces an effect far different from that which have been produced by the same statements a hundred years ago. This is why we must proceed very carefully when we deal with the sort of crimes we are trying to establish under 267B. I realize the Attorney General will have to give consent before a prosecution is allowed, but an Attorney General in one part of Canada may have a conception of what constitutes social rectitude entirely different from that held by his counterpart in another province.
Reduced to its essentials, the bill is really dealing not with defamation, libel or slander as between individuals, but with defamation, libel or slander as between classes. It affords an opportunity for one minority, group to say that another minority group is out to get it, or it provides an opportunity for a majority group to complain about a minority group, or for a minority group to complain about majority groups.
Perhaps I am especially sensitive to this issue because recently in Halifax we were visted by an encounter team, experts from outside in sociology, psychology, racial relationships and the like, who turned our community inside out, if I may use that phrase. They examined everything. They lifted the lids from our ids. They wanted to see what made the Halifax area tick-how the black people got along with the white people, and vice versa. They criticized all our methods of government and, in short, they examined everything that could be put out publicly on
Hate Propaganda
the line. In addition, there was the question of the appointment of a city manager.
The gentleman who was chosen by the Halifax city council came from Oklahoma City. At one time he was engaged in labour relations with a certain union. All did not go well, I gather, in his dealings with that union, so people who resented the loss of a victory, in other words, the defeat of the labour union, were quick to telephone Halifax and suggest that the man chosen by the city council to be the city manager was a racist. I think this is germane to the bill, because what happened next was that certain people drew ranks together, just as any rallying crowd would do. There was a tremendous fuss at city hall and the man withdrew his candidacy for city manager of the city that I, along with the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), represent in Parliament.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
Mind you, Mr. Speaker, this happened without the man's true nature being known to the people of Halifax, without there being one word in the charge being made against him of racism, or implied racism-a pretty serious charge if proven. He might have his remedy in the courts, I do not know; but he will have his remedy in public opinion when at some time or other people have the chance to dig out the facts and find out what it was all about. As for the job itself, his salary would have been an increase over what he received in Oklahoma City, and this he will not have thanks to a few who were able to raise the cry of hatred against him. Knowing this man's circumstances and his plight, I sympathize with him. I think he was kicked like a dog and never had his day in regard to public opinion as a result of the vapid thinking of a racist, rallying group, a small minority that nevertheless had its way in my own city.
Despite this, I do not think I could espouse the principle that is contained in a bill such as this. I do not think you can settle a miserable battle in this way, where one man's thoughts or one group's thoughts communicate statements that incite hatred or wilfully promote hatred against another person or another identifiable group. I do not think this situation can be solved by criminal action. You cannot solve this kind of miserable battle in court; it cannot be done in that way.
The only way you can solve battles like this, I think, is to dredge the slugs, the people who espouse hatred or contempt of others,


Hate Propaganda
out from under the rocks and hold them up high where the public can look at them and ask questions. I think essentially they are suffering from sick or misguided minds; perhaps they have infantile minds and are not able to see the whole world as it exists but rather see only their own small part of it.
Every member of the House has received letters in his mailbox, as I have in mine, from someone who dislikes French Canada, from others who dislike English Canada, letters complaining that the Indians are not getting a good break, that the blacks are being hounded, that the WASPs are an ugly bunch, and so on and so forth. We all receive letters like this. If they are all put together, what they add up to is that just about everybody in Canada is a person who should be hated, who should be the object of ridicule and contempt.
This is the way life is. I do not see how we solve these things by having a few brisk court cases-miserable battles, as I called them earlier. I think we are better off having the full spotlight focused upon these situations in a democratic country. These things should be explored in the newspapers, on television and radio. Let us talk about them in Parliament, though perhaps the most distasteful debates that take place in this House are those that deal with human rights. It is always difficult in a political forum to deal with such issues. For example, a few years ago I do not think I made any great contribution to the debate on the Bill of Rights. I went back to it, and this is one of the items I wish I had not talked about, because I think I had some political motivation in getting after certain of my friends who now sit to my left.
Be that as it may, I think it is public discussion and public spotlighting that provides a better answer. The light of truth can be made to shine. People who have to lurk in small corners with their own small prejudices, their own small hates and their own small contempts can be made to live harmlessly from the rest of us. So, Mr. Speaker, unless I am persuaded very much otherwise during the debate tomorrow, I am afraid I cannot accept the principles contained within section 267B (1) and 267B (2), and will support the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams).


Mr. Colin D. Gibson (Hamilion-Weni-worih):: Mr. Speaker, in the course of his speech the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) inferred that Bill C-3 is designed for election purposes. I believe he 
has missed the point. The bill before the House is designed to protect minorities, not majorities. Surely this is not a narrow, electioneering purpose. The hon. member has, of course, had little opportunity in recent years to acquire an accurate understanding of majority opinion. He and his party are obviously out of touch with majority opinion in Canada. We are dealing with the dignity of man, and we intend to protect the victims of slanderous prejudice in modem Canadian society. If we pass wise and just laws, we are far more likely to be re-elected than if we retreat and shrink from laws which dignify man in Canadian society.
In speaking against the amendment, I believe that should the amendment pass we would eliminate the direct causes of genocide by criminal restraint. I believe that the House has the courage and the strength actively to prevent abusive, prejudicial expressions of hatred against identifiable minority groups. We agreed through action at the United Nations to take steps to eliminate racial prejudice. This we said and this we shall do. This is why we are here today. We are in the act of doing what is required to equalize the rights of those minority groups, thus giving them the protection they deserve. The high standard set by Canadian justice will be reached by goals such as those contained within the bill. Prejudice will be thwarted by law and by education.
May I call it ten o'clock?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, on March 6, not knowing at the time that I was so prophetic in the import of my question, I asked the Postmaster General (Mr. Kierans), as reported at page 4469 of Hansard:
-what other minister or ministers will now be assigned the duty of bringing about a solution to the prolonged postal dispute in Montreal?
Alas, sir, that prolonged dispute is still facing the country, and the acerbity of the problem has not diminished. Although I asked the question on March 6, the problem began much earlier, on February 3. To say that the Postmaster General is disaster prone is to use


an euphemism. There has been more trouble, more divisiveness and more unrest than in any equal period of any of his predecessors since the great Sir John A. Macdonald occupied the post for one day over 100 years ago.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)
One of the kindest things one could say is that the hon. gentleman is a trouble-prone Postmaster General. In this, the most brittle and most bitter of disputes, the government has moved to bail him out and share with him the responsibility for the brittleness, ineptitude, harshness of attitude and lack of perception of the problems. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) today is, unique among the cabinet ministers, away in the cool waters of the Azores. The Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) is not with us. What he thinks I am not able to divine, but I have my suspicions.
So after many, many weeks of faltering, inadequate or non-service we have an eleventh hour effort to bail out the government and an urgent last minute summons to a man heretofore with an unblemished record, Mr. Goldenberg. Yet this man's report is anything but a paean of praise for the Postmaster General. Indeed, it looks like a carefully documented denunciation and denigration of that hon. gentleman whose activities as Postmaster General some of us have questioned rather stringently and severely in these past many months. Almost, sir, it is as harsh as the denunciation of Mr. Martin of the Public Service Commission some months ago. Significant among the comments of Mr. Goldenberg is that in respect of the moral responsibility of the government in its role as employer. I submit in all the tangled web of uncertainty and misunderstanding that the role of the government as an employer is the very, very significant question we as legislators must face.
Surely the government should be pre-eminent in the realm of labour-management relations and should as an employer be above reproach. But it would be a reckless man who would suggest that in this tangled web of uncertainty, of deception and of regrettable faltering the government has been above reproach. I will pass by quickly Commissioner Goldenberg's comment upon the substitution of the six-day week for the five-day week, a matter upon which many of us have commented, lo these many months, to no avail. But after months of inefficiency, ineptitude and internecine conflict the Post Office has

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion reached a state of paralysis or worse in the most important receiving and distributing centre in our whole nation, namely, the city of Montreal. The failure to give good service to the Canadian people is appalling; but it is something to which the Canadian people should have grown accustomed. But the fact that bad service is tolerable cannot pardon the government for providing no service.
If I had time in these seven minutes I would quote from the illustrious paper, the Ottawa Citizen, the lead editorial which is capitalized "A Catalogue of Blunders." In considering everything, I ask how many more privations the Canadian public must endure in this unseemly conflict between an arrogant Postmaster General and a legitimate union. I am not going to talk about the reported turbulence in the cabinet which it would seem is even more disturbing than the turbulence in some areas of the postal service. It is not my purpose to seek to pry into the workings of the Privy Council to ask who is on slippery slopes or in cold water, but I ask: Are we to punish hundreds of decent, honourable workers who have served the mail service well, in order to follow a certain formula acceptable to a minister or to this government which is not acceptable to the union or to a majority of the cabinet?


Mr. E. F. Whelan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, in answering the question of the hon. member may I say that it is indeed a privilege for me to say what I think should be said, and I intend to make my remarks in less than the two minutes allowed me. First of all I should like to correct some insinuations which the member made. If the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) is in the Azores, his wonderful record of accomplishments entitles him to this trip which is well earned. Regarding the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene), let me say that he is not in the Azores because I had supper with him tonight in the parliamentary restaurant.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Did
he deserve that?


Eugene Whelan: If the rest of the comments made by the hon. member are as inaccurate as those I mentioned, I do not know what I can say to help him. The minister has inherited a department that has been long neglected by other governments. The government of which the hon. gentleman was a member did not do anything to try to improve postal services or the long-forgotten department.


Proceedings on Adjournment Motion


Robert Jardine McCleave: We did deliver the mail, though.


Eugene Whelan: Anyone who accepts a challenge to improve a department which has been neglected for so long is bound to run into conflict. If he is determined to make it work, reaction of every kind will certainly rear its head, and anyone who has studied the history of the Post Office Department, as I am sure the hon. member has, will realize that this is true. This department has long been due for an overhaul. When one checks the record of the minister and his background, one certainly notes his ability. I am sure that all members of the House recognize the minister's ability to work and to solve the tremendous problems faced by the Post Office Department. He has the necessary experience and knowledge, and he needs the backing of every member of this Parliament to ensure that the problems with which the Post Office Department is confronted are solved in a satisfactory manner.
I understand that today a new offer has been made to the postal workers in the Montreal area who are involved in the strife that is now going on there. The offer has been announced in a press release, but no details were given. We all have to wait until tomorrow to find what they are, and let us hope that by tomorrow the difficulty will be settled in an amicable fashion for the benefit of all those concerned with the postal services in Canada.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS-ACTION RESPECTING NON-RETURNABLE BOTTLES

Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, on March 12 I asked the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Basford) what plans he had to protect the consumer from a growing pollution menace, that of non-returnable bottles. This is a completely unnecessary evil thrust upon the long suffering consumer by the glass industry. Always on the lookout for expanding markets, they have seized upon the one-trip bottle as the glass industry's bonanza, regardless of the added cost to the consumer, regardless of the danger of broken glass on playgrounds, streets and highways, regardless of the unsightly litter of disgarded bottles everywhere and the difficulties and expense to municipalities of cleaning up the mess.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
Such callous disregard for consumer interests has begun to stir community groups into 
action. Organizations such as the Consumer Association of Canada, the Canadian Federation of Mayors and Municipalities, the Home and School Association, known in some parts of Canada as the Parent-Teacher Federation, and other large organizations have protested vigorously at their national conventions and have demanded action-so far in vain.
More recently the minister of highways of the province of Alberta declared that unless the federal Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs places a ban on non-returnable bottles, the highways ministers of all ten provinces will discuss ways and means of dealing with this problem. Still more recently the province of British Columbia passed Bill No. 33, the litter Act, section 3 of which reads:
No person shall sell or offer for sale beer, ale, carbonated beverages or drinks in a glass, plastic, or metal container for consumption or use off the premises of which they are sold or offered for sale unless the person undertakes to refund to the purchaser on delivery up of the container the sum of not less than two cents for each container.
This is the sort of legislation we need federally. At the beginning of the tourist season we scarcely need to be reminded of the vast quantities of soft drinks and their containers that will be bought this summer. Will this mean pleasure all around, or will it mean momentary pleasure for the individual and long drawn-out, pain-in-the-neck pollution for the community? Surely we have had enough of pollution without letting this kind of pollution proliferate in the way it is doing. It is up to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs; let him ban the one-trip bottle now; let him find ways and means of doing it.
In the days gone by the minister might have been tempted to shelve such action by saying it was strictly provincial in scope. But after the answer he gave through his parliamentary secretary to my colleague, the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Saltsman), on October 3, 1968, no such escape is possible. On that occasion his parliamentary secretary said-I am glad the parliamentary secretary is in the chamber tonight-as follows: However, Mr. Speaker, in line with the minister's duty to promote and encourage the institution of practices tending to improve protection of the Canadian consumer and to co-operate with provincial governments or their agencies, or with private groups, the minister will be having further talks with his officials and will consider the question of non-returnable bottles, with a view to formulating some type of regulation.
After these departmental talks, it is intended to invite representatives of the manufacturers, the user and the retail distributors of these bottles to
April 6, 1970	COMMONS
Ottawa to discuss the problems and all proposals, as well as ascertain from these people what they intend to do relative to the problem mentioned by the hon. member.
I repeat that that was on October 3, 1968. After 18 months, Mr. Speaker, we are still waiting to hear the result of these talks, formulations, invitations, discussions, ascertainments, intentions-I take all that language from the reply-and what-nots, and that last expression is my own, on non-returnable bottles, which is the problem we are talking about.
Non-returnable bottles are to be found everywhere. The retailer does not care what happens after the sale is made. The empties will be found in householder garbage cans, in parks, rivers and lakes, on lawns, streets, in roadside ditches and even in grain fields. Some of us remember the Russian wheat deal and how the Russians could not handle the grain because of the broken-bottle litter in it. How about watching out for our export trade, because it is important. Non-returnable bottles can be a great factor in making more accidents possible, and damage and injuries greater. Death can be accelerated by contact with broken glass carelessly thrown in a ditch after a minor car accident.
After all these prolonged negotiations we are waiting to hear what the minister has come up with, after he has invited the provinces, the glass people, the consumers and the retailers and everybody else to Ottawa to do all this discussing. Surely after 18 months he is beginning to come up with something to protect the consumer. Pollution is a thorny problem with many ugly angles. Few are uglier or more unsightly than the broken glass which wastes our resources, endangers our children and infests our landscape. Again I ask the minister, what plans has he to deal with this pollution menace?
Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Basford) I would first like to assure all hon. members of the House that the department is not only concerned about the problem of nonreturnable bottles but also is giving this problem very urgent consideration. In particular, the department is now looking into standards for containers. In general, I should like to say that we are very much aware of at least two major problems presented by non-returnable bottles, the problem of litter and the problem of safety.
DEBATES	5563
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
It has been suggested frequently that the federal government ban the sale of beverages in non-returnable bottles. I should like to emphasize that the federal Parliament has jurisdiction only over that part of trade and commerce which is interprovincial or international. Since soft drinks and beer enter interprovincial trade rarely, if at all, any action by the federal Parliament would be ineffective in dealing with the problem. Any legislation to ban the sale of beverages in disposable bottles would have to be passed by the provincial legislatures.
Non-returnable bottles are only one cause of the litter created by containers. Legislation to prevent the use of non-returnable bottles would be only a partial remedy. The hon. member has already mentioned the Litter Act which was introduced into the legislature of British Columbia and which will be under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Recreation and Conservation. I should like to commend the government of British Columbia for introducing such a bill, one which defines litter by including rubbish, garbage, waste material, containers, packages, bottles, cans or parts thereof. The hon. member has already mentioned section 3, about the refund that should be made to the purchaser, and other sections of this act. It is one which I believe should be commended to all provinces of Canada, Mr. Speaker. This bill will require that all containers for beverages be returnable and will prohibit the littering of waters and lands, the spoiling and fouling of waters and adjacent land.
Mr. Speaker, this is all I can say at the present time, but I have made note of the representations made by the hon. member and I should like to assure her that I will bring this matter to the attention of the minister.



CRIMINAL CODE-PROCLAMATION OF REMAINDER OF AMENDMENTS RESPECTING BREATHALYZER

Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, the decision of Mr. Justice Craig Munroe with regard to the rather unique method by which the government proclaimed the breathalyzer provision of the amendments to the Criminal Code was not the first time this matter had been raised publicly. On January 15, in this House of Commons, at page 2464 of Hansard, at just about this time of day I said:
I note that it has been accepted over the years that certain sections of acts can be proclaimed, and indeed have been proclaimed, without the whole


Proceedings on Adjournment Motion body of the act being proclaimed at one time. But I have never heard of a package within an act being proclaimed and little snippets and pieces of that package being cut out and held up until a future proclamation.
My understanding that this was a very unusual course was reinforced when I spoke to two members of the class of 1940 in the House, the righit hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). In their vast parliamentary experience-and nobody is their equal in that regard -they could not recall such a course being adopted.
I made that statement then, nobody has challenged me since, and I stand by it. I think on behalf of Parliament a big vote of thanks is due Mr. Justice Craig Munroe for doing what we should be able to do but find ourselves powerless to do once the government acts in such an unusual fashion.
a (10:20 p.m.)
When the matter of the approved container for the breathalyzer section of the Code was dealt with-and this is what we are dealing with here, the removal from proclamation of three parts of the amendments to the Criminal Code which deal with this very essential right of an accused-a question was asked by the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) on March 18, 1969, with respect to the proclamation. This is when the matter was before the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. The following exchange is reported at page 476 of Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence No. 11 of that committee:


John Napier Turner: ...We do not
have a suitable container yet developed___That is
the problem Mr. Hogarth was talking about and that is why we have to delay the proclamation.


Mr. Peters:: Well, Mr. Chairman, how can you approve it when you have not decided on one.


John Napier Turner: That is right.
Until we find one we will not proclaim it.
Most or all the members of the Justice and Legal Affairs Committee took that exchange to mean that the minister would not proclaim the entire .08 package of the law until the approved container was found. I have been reinforced in that view by talking to hon. members, who have given me this opinion privately. Perhaps I should quote one hon. member who has given his opinion publicly. I wish to quote from an article in today's Montreal Gazette, by Gordon Pape. At page 7 of the newspaper the hon. member for Peel South (Mr. Chappell), a government supporter, is written about in these terms:
[Mr. McCleave.l
Mr. Chappell charged that the law as proclaimed "completely defeats the spirit of the act.'' He said it had never been Parliament's intention "that the penalties would pass into law but not the safeguards.''
I return to the essential point. When the Standing Committee of the House on Justice and Legal Affairs gave its approval to the bill to amend the Criminal Code-and the bill was a general package which included various provisions-it was our feeling that the whole of this particular amendment to the Criminal Code, the whole provision dealing with the .08 per cent blood alcohol level and the breathalyzer, would come into force and effect at one time. We were surprised when the minister and the government adopted the course taken. We are pleased that the court has seen fit to chide them for their action. I wish to quote one more passage from today's Ottawa Journal. The editorial page reads in part:
The government was three times warned in Parliament about this discrepancy by Conservative Robert McCleave but Justice Minister Turner assured the Commons the accused's human rights were already protected. And so they may be.
But it is clear that neither the judge nor Canadian public opinion is against the breath test. The judge suggests only that the govemement did not take pains to see that its laws are not only sensible but framed and processed within the law.
I think these things are better on record, Mr. Speaker, because I have seen the Minister of Justice, who seems to be a white haired boy among certain elements of the so-called national press, quoted without anybody ever trying to look back at the committee report to see what really was done or intended then. It is time, for example, that Mr. Burns of the Toronto Globe and Mail at least got the facts in order.


Mr. Jean Charles Canlin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to avail myself of this opportunity to correct some assertions made today by some opposition members concerning the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner).
All those who know about his fairness, his broadness of mind and his sense of justice will recognize that the Minister of Justice had warned the House that this section would not be passed until the equipment for making the test and communicating its results to the accused was available.
April 6. 1970	COMMONS
Besides, the hon. member should have mentioned the statement made by the Minister of Justice before the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. As reported at page 459 of the Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of the committee, the minister stated, and I quote:
You and I have talked privately about this. At the moment there is no fool proof sample procedure available. I will give an undertaking to the Committee that we will not proclaim this section until we have one available, but we think we ought to have it. We ought to have the section ready if we can get a proper sample procedure approved.
DEBATES	5565
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
I feel that quotation is quite clear. It covers the whole section and the cabinet intends to act accordingly.
In addition, I wonder if this is really the time to discuss that matter, since the Minister of Justice has just said that the whole matter will be deferred to the highest court of justice in Canada. I feel that we should wait for the decision of that court.

Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.28 p.m.

Tuesday, April 7, 1970