Mr. Laing:

Would the hon. member be good enough to permit us to get the answers to some of his questions, and they could be given to him when the particular item is before the committee? We have most of them here, but there are one or two we want to get.

Mr. Fisher:

First of all, I must express my pleasure at seeing you in the chair, sir. I have always thought, particularly in view of the recent announcement that residents of Ottawa may be choosing a mayor, that with the experience you have gained in this kind of role you may consider that line of endeavour. I know that it has only been your great admiration for her performance that has kept you from trying for that position; but that is by the way.

I had hoped to speak about the national museum, which is included in the estimates, but I understand that the Secretary of State and the house leader are going to see that we will have an opportunity, on his estimates,

5974 HOUSE OF

Supply-Northern Affairs to speak about the national museum. Is my understanding correct? Fine, thank you.

I want to make a remark or two about what was said by the hon. member for Northwest Territories. It is all very well, and I admire him for the strength with which he pushes his representation as a member up there, but like the last speaker I also have a chunk of the north, although it is not as far north. However, it does comprise 148,000 square miles. I have a very large Indian population and a rather small Eskimo population, although I do not get to see them very often. It is very difficult. In the contacts that I have had, particularly with the Indians, and these go back to 193738 when I first got involved in mining, and paddling prospectors around, I have seen nothing to indicate that the Indians in my part of northern Ontario, which is above the track, really feel they have gained anything from the extension of the franchise to them within provincial jurisdiction. As a matter of fact, the interest that they show in it is not particularly keen. I, personally, have sometimes wished that northern affairs was responsible for the Indians in that part of the country rather than the situation that exists at the present time.

It seems to me they would have a better deal if the general administration in the area, in the widest sense, came under northern affairs instead of being broken down between a number of authorities. I should like also to put on the record, not from any party point of view, that I am quite intrigued by the argument made by the hon. member for Yukon and the hon. member for Northwest Territories on this question of getting provincial status. This is a normal aspiration. I would hope that when the population is larger something like this would really develop. There is nothing that I can see on the horizon to indicate an increase in the population on a scale that would make a provincial organization really justifiable, particularly in economic terms. As I say, it will come and it has to come, but in view of the population, particularly in the Northwest Territories, I do not mind putting on the record that it seems to me this is not feasible or practical at the present tmie.

I am expressing this point of view as an individual member of parliament who is sufficiently interested in the north to read almost everything that comes out in connection with it. I was interested in the book with the very lovely coloured cover that was published not long ago. There is nothing in that book, and there is very little indication

in many of the recent studies that have been published in connection with the north, to indicate that there is going to be some kind of population break-through. It would seem to me that it might be very premature to have a provincial government established when you have such a thin scattering of population over so many points. I have enough experience in my own part of a northern riding to know there is absolutely no connection between Big Trout lake and Lans-downe House. They are both in the north. Big Trout lake is 460 miles north of Port Arthur and the other place, Lansdowne House, is about 420 miles northeast of Port Arthur. They are both in the north. There is absolutely no connection between them, and their lines do not go out to meet at some larger centre. So, you have a problem when you are considering the Northwest Territories, much less the Yukon, because of a situation in which the population is scattered without any kind of nodal point of population having a real influence, that is drawing other communities into their economic orbit or being part of their economic hinterland. It seems to me you have not, as yet, got a condition for a viable province with a provincial economy that has some kind of economic basis that is substantial.

As soon as this begins to really appear it seems to me we would be on our way. I had hoped, as did many other enthusiasts for the north, that Frobisher might be the place, but everyone knows what happened to the dreams and aspirations of that. It is only a few years ago since the hon. member for Qu'Appelle was talking about creating a domed city there, almost like the Houston baseball park, which would have air conditioning and be a model for the world. I was captured by that imaginative glimpse of the future in the Canadian north, but there is a more recent realism that indicates this is some time away.

I hope the hon. members for Yukon and the Northwest Territories will forgive me for getting this far into their territory. I would not want to close without saying I have always noticed in this chamber that the region one comes from is so much more the determinator of performance than the party one belongs to, and I hope the hon. member for Northwest Territories will not mind my saying he reminds we very much of the late Merv Hardy, who also took a very tough and hard line in this chamber so far as the federal agencies working in the north are concerned. I say this to him as a compliment and I hope he will continue being

vigilant and keep giving the minister and the government hell for the inadequacies in the way they treat the people there.

I also want to put on the record a report of a debate which took place here some five years ago. I was reminded of it today because we keep hearing the same speeches over and over again, and this afternoon the hon. member for Bow River gave his annual commercial exploitation in his parks speech. I think it is well for me to put on the record that a number of years ago he also made a fighting, slashing attack on the head hand of bureaucracy that lay over the development of our parks, particularly the ones on the Alberta and B.C. borders. At that time we in the opposition were hooting it up because of his attack on the government of which he was a supporter, but after he had spoken the then minister of northern affairs, the hon. member for Qu'Appelle, got up and replied, and according to a report in the Montreal Gazette he said:

I want to make it abundantly clear that I stand for the primary purpose of these parks- the idea that they should be preserved just as they were when the original explorer found them.

It's about time, Mr. Hamilton said, that the millions "who use the parks and love them" band together in an association, free from civil servants and politicians.

How can a minister stand up against the pressures of commercial interests who want to use the parks for mining, forestry and for every honky-tonk recreational device known to man, unless the people who love these parks are prepared to band together and support the minister-?

The report went on to point out that his remarks followed suggestions by a couple of government backbenchers, including the hon. member for Bow River, who suggested that there should be much more commercial enterprise in the parks. It added that the minister said:

If people want to shoot off bullets at a rifle range, or take out electric cars thumping around a circular iron track, or attend open air theatre shows, then I say there are many areas outside the parks which could perfectly well provide such diversion.

I thought it might be just as well to note this because it seems to me the hon. member for Bow River was concentrating this part of his fire on the government as a Liberal government. I think it is worth while noting he also concentrated his fire upon the Conservative government as a Conservative government, on this issue, and the minister at that time stood up to him and issued in effect what I thought was a very effective rebuttal. I would hope the present minister would have the same attitude.

Supply-Northern Affairs

I would like the minister at some time to supply the response that was made to the representations from T. F. Rayner and Judy Rayner of the Marmna development in Jasper, Alberta, where they were developing a ski proposition, and when the matter came up for bid they lost the tender to another organization. They expressed their bitterness over this to a number of members of parliament, since they had a considerable investment in the enterprise not only in the capital sense but in their individual effort, which looked as though it were going down the drain.

I also want to tell the minister I was very surprised when two people in western Canada sent me clippings of a report of a speech he made to the Vancouver real estate board. Each of them was bowled over by certain quotations from his speech, in which he was reported to have said that we could overcome our water shortage by praying for rain. One quotation which was credited to the minister was that if people in the various levels of government would mind their own business we would get along a lot better in this country.

I think that may have been a reporter's paraphrase of his words but it struck me as being unusual and the interpretation put on the minister's words was that everything would be fine in the realm of government if the people in the different jurisdictions would mind their own business. In view of the controversy he has been enmeshed in with the government of Quebec, symbolized by Rene Levesque, this struck me as rather interesting and I wanted to find out more about it.

I sent to the minister's office for a copy of his speech and I was surprised to discover he did not have a text. I do not know whether he spoke without a text, whether he usually free wheels like this, but I was surprised he would appear before such an august body in his own territory and speak without a text, and allow this kind of quotation to appear, which suggested the real solution to the difficulties of the country was to have politicians at certain levels of government to mind their own business.

I would be very interested in hearing from the minister that he did not have a text of his speech. I know the former prime minister, the Leader of the Opposition, had a great reputation for speaking off the cuff, but one of the things that always intrigued me was when you wrote to his office they could always send you a text.

Supply-Northern Affairs

Mr. Diefenbaker:

May I clarify that for the benefit of the minister. After I have spoken a stenographer taking down the speech makes it available for everyone so that there would be none of the misunderstanding that sometimes characterizes the hon. gentleman.

Mr. Fisher:

Well, this is very true but sometimes, Mr. Chairman, we used to get from the right hon. gentleman's office the text of a speech that was prepared and never given, because of the hon. gentleman's ability to ad lib and take off from his text. I do not think he would be one to deny that. But this practice of the minister, as exemplified by his speech to the Vancouver real estate board, interested me because, as I say, it fitted in with the Quebec controversy, and also took me back to that stirring announcement he made not too many months ago about that magnificent scholarship scheme. There is a text of that speech, I understand, and it certainly raised many hopes. We all remember the magnificent Toronto Star head-fine and we wondered what the minister of northern affairs was doing in this particular field, offering these 10,000 scholarships-come and get them, all you need is your talent.

I hope the minister can gather from these remarks that I and some of my colleagues are interested in his performance in almost every way. We have been intrigued with his relations with the premier of Saskatchewan. I understand the premier of Saskatchewan feels he has only one soulmate in the federal cabinet and that is the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. I do not know the premier of Saskatchewan very well, but it rather surprised me that he would prefer the minister of northern affairs to the Minister of Trade and Commerce as his liaison, his interlocutor, with the stalwarts in the Pearson cabinet.

Naturally there is a tendency among those of us who are somewhat suspicious of the motives and intent of the premier of Saskatchewan to transfer this suspicion to the minister of northern affairs, as his buddy. I realize this may be unfair of us. In the same way, I sometimes transfer some of my annoyance with the hon. member for Kootenay West to the hon. member for Kootenay East, and if the minister could do anything to straighten us out as to his attachment to the premier of Saskatchewan I think we would all be interested to hear him.

I wish to ask the minister a question now, relating to the salary scales applicable to

teachers within his department. These were recently increased, and I have had placed on the record through questions this session the figures for all the various government agencies which employ teachers. There is no question in my mind but that salaries paid to teachers in this department compare very favourably with those paid by other departments of government. I am not against this, but I should like to know what the governing factors are. The minister will remember that the Glassco commission report was not so flattering to the teaching effort of the department of northern affairs as it was to that of the Indian affairs branch. If I may paraphrase the report of the royal commission in this respect, it is that they were doubtful about the value we are getting for the money spent on education by this department particularly as compared with the Indian affairs branch. I was bothered by this because I have not been much impressed by the value we have been getting out of the schools run by the Indian affairs branch, and consequently I wondered what standards of efficiency were being used. While the Indian affairs branch may be able to do the work cheaper than the department of northern affairs, I am also very much aware that the standard of some of the teachers is not as high as the standard of those employed by the department of northern affairs. If the minister can show me that part of the higher cost of teachers in his department is a consequence of achieving a higher standard of teaching than in comparable government departments, I would be most interested. I have often thought, in the light of the response which the Department of National Defence has achieved in getting teachers for Canadian children in Europe by paying the salaries of the teachers to the school boards in the areas from which they come, that a similar arrangement might well be established in the hon. gentleman's department. It seems to me there is a discontinuity in the teaching of classes, both in the department of northern affairs and in the Indian affairs branch, because it is found difficult to obtain the services of teachers for any length of time, and I should like to suggest that it might be possible, particularly because of the romantic aura which would surround teaching for a year or two in the north, to change completely the teacher recruitment practice which now exists and, for the staffing of northern schools, rely on a policy of the kind followed by the Department of National Defence.

I appreciate that this might be more expensive. I can think, for example, of teachers employed by the board of education of Kapus-kasing, which probably pays the highest salaries in Ontario, going over to teach in Europe and enjoying a salary as high as any paid by the department of northern affairs. On the other hand, one can be almost certain of getting high quality and I am confident that the quality of the teaching in our schools in Europe as a result of the policy adopted by the Department of National Defence is exceptionally high. I think it is above the national standard. In the visits I have made to those schools, as a result of conversations with the teachers I was very much taken by the quality of the staff, and I believe this same quality might be achieved if there were an imaginative recruitment scheme using the services of teachers on loan from schools in southern Canada for a year or two. It may be objected that something would be lost because teachers would not be in the north for a long time and would not become acclimatized to conditions there. I would argue that a classroom, whether in southern Ontario or West Germany or the far north, is much the same. It is the other conditions which change. I suggest that the turnover in the schools in the minister's department is already such that if we could get teachers to undertake a northern assignment for two years there would be just as much continuity as exists at the present time.

I do not wish to close without adding a comment to the minister's own comment about his good relations with, and the good work he got out of, his parliamentary secretary. I often feel that these humble people are not given sufficient recognition, particularly by the opposition. It is rarely that we find a minister prepared to hold up his follower as an exemplar-as someone who is on his way and who is going somewhere. We felt, ever since we got to hear about this particular hon. member, when he made headlines right across the country through his dancing ability, that he would go far in Canadian politics and we welcome this recognition of this new kind of dancing which has caught on with the minister.

Item stands.

Progress reported.

Mr. Deputy Speaker:

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

Genocide GENOCIDE

Mr. Marvin Gelber (York South):

Neshoba county negro church in Mississippi was burned to the ground on June 21, 1964. Three civil rights students, Mickey Schermer, aged 24, Andrew Goodman, aged 20, James Chaney, aged 21, vanished on first assignment investigating destruction of the church. After arrest for allegedly speeding, they were released and subsequently disappeared. The gutted shell of a station wagon was found ditched near Bogue Swamp outside Philadelphia, Mississippi. Some days later, the lower torso of a white youth, with feet bound, was found in the swamp. Mr. J. Edgar Hoover, head of the F.B.I. believes they are dead.

The problem we are dealing with in this bill, Mr. Speaker, is larger than the problems which are encompassed within this house and our country. In its larger horizons today the great struggle is the struggle over colour. We have a great revolution which is engulfing our universe. Just concluded is the recent conference of commonwealth prime ministers in which the question of colour played a very important role. At this conference this country and other members of the commonwealth pursued the diplomacy of active understanding.

Today we are examining a bill which raises important topics concerning the relationship of the Criminal Code of Canada and the rights of free speech. I spoke on this topic in this house during the throne speech debate on March 2, when I raised the point that the sections on free speech were matured in a society very different from our own. We live in a highly articulated society where the mass media of communication are very well organized and where the merchandisers of opinion are using all sorts of scientific techniques to mould that opinion. It seems to me that the arguments of John Stuart Mill which remain very important in terms of civil liberties and the right of free speech are not totally relevant to our society where tens of millions are daily subject to mass merchandising by people who have studied scientifically the process of influencing public opinion. The goldfish bowl of Hyde Park is not relevant to 20th century Canada, and the Socratic debate with which John Stuart Mill

Genocide

was dealing does not reflect the problem of influencing public opinion in our society.

I want to read two quotations from Dean Ivan Rand. As Mr. Justice Rand he delivered one of the most important opinions in the Boucher case, which had a great deal to do with our law relating to sedition. In his memorable judgment he said this:

Freedom of thought and speech and disagreement in ideas and beliefs, on every conceivable subject, are of the essence of our life. The clash of critical discussion on political, social and religious subjects has too deeply become the stuff of daily experience to suggest that mere ill-will as a product of controversy can strike down the latter with illegality.

Recently Dean Rand retired as dean of the law school of the University of Western Ontario. In a dispatch to the Toronto Daily Star he is quoted as follows:

The 80-year-old retiring dean of the University of Western Ontario law school continued: "We are in danger of becoming fanatical about individual rights".

Recognition of responsibilities, he said, is endangered by the continued assertion of the rights of individuals.

"We must accept either the rule of reason or the rule of passion-of hatred. I sometimes wish we could forbid the importation of these hatreds from other countries".

Mr. Rand also said: "In this country we are obsessed with the notion that any departure from tradition is fraught with danger. The first objective in this country should be a reconciliation of clashing demands and ideals. When we achieve this objective, we shall be making headway, but we mustn't be in too much of a hurry: Advances are slow to become part of tradition".

In this debate we have heard a number of excellent speeches. We had the address of the hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Klein) who introduced the bill, as well as the hon. member for York Centre (Mr. Walker) who seconded it. Then we had a fine speech from the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and two speeches from the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) and the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill). I want to deal with the latter two speeches.

I was impressed by the remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre. In talking of group libel he said that "if our laws are not satisfactory in that respect they should be amended". The hon. member for Peace River quoted a number of sections of the Criminal Code which he felt would deal with the cases mentioned by my hon. friend from Cartier, cases which have concerned this house and deal with the dissemination of vicious literature. The hon. member for Peace River felt that the existing Criminal

[Mr. Gelber.)

Code could deal adequately with these problems. He quoted a number of sections from the Criminal Code. I want to say that at the suggestion of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) the Canadian Jewish Congress asked for two independent legal opinions, one from Mr. John J. Robinette and the other from Mr. Arthur Maloney, a former member of this house. They have examined each of the sections, except one which was mentioned by the hon. member for Peace River, and they do not feel that the wording of these sections is adequate in the circumstances. One section which is not examined is section 165 of the Criminal Code, and the hon. member for Peace River himself had very strong doubts about its relevancy.

A point made by the hon. member for Peace River with which I should like to deal is this. He said that the common law could deal with these particular problems which we are facing. The Boucher case restricted very narrowly the conception of sedition, and the opinion of Mr. Robinette and that of Mr. Arthur Maloney is that the common law does not apply in view of section 8, since the Criminal Code deals with sedition.

In my earlier remarks in the throne speech debate I suggested that we should look at the code and within the tradition of our law make certain changes which will deal with these particular problems. I should like to refer to a proposal put before the government by the Canadian Jewish Congress in order to make it possible to apply this particular section dealing with sedition to the existing circumstances. They proposed that there be added to the section on sedition the following paragraph:

Everyone who publishes or circulates or causes to be published or circulated orally or in writing any matter intended or calculated to incite violence or provoke disorder against any class of persons or against any person as a member of any class in Canada shall be guilty of any indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for two years.

The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) was quite right. In the common law, which we share, there is regard, under the provisions relating to sedition, for relationship between groups. I would like to quote from Stephen's Digest of Criminal Law, article 114, 8th edition. I am just quoting an extract. Stephen said:

A seditious intention is an intention to bring into hatred or contempt.. .or to incite any person to commit any crime in disturbance of the peace, or to raise discontent or disaffection among His Majesty's subjects, or to promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different classes of such subjects.

We have lost that in our code. The hon. member for Peace River felt that the common law took care of that particular aspect of sedition; but the opinions I have brought here today of Mr. Robinette, Mr. Maloney and others maintain that the common law crime no longer exists within our law because of the Criminal Code.

There is another section with which the hon. member for Peace River dealt, and that was section 166, spreading false news. I pointed out in my address in this house on March 2 that the crime of spreading false news is too vague in dealing with the question of public interest. I will read section 166:

Every one who wilfully publishes a statement, tale or news that he knows is false and that causes or is likely to cause injury or mischief to a public interest is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for two years.

It is the opinion of these legal authorities that by failing to define "public interest" the usefulness of this section, in this particular context, is very seriously limited. It is the opinion of the attorney general of Ontario, according to press reports, and it is certainly the opinion of Mr. Robinette and Mr. Maloney, that this section is not effective in view of the fact that the term "public interest" is not defined. I do not feel it would be a radical departure from our law to define "public interest" in terms which would make it effective in dealing with this particular matter. The Canadian Jewish Congress have suggested adding these two paragraphs to section 166 of the Criminal Code:

Injury or mischief to a public interest shall include statements intended or calculated for the promotion of hatred, contempt or hostility against a group of persons by reason of their particular race, nationality or ethnic origin, colour or religion.

The second paragraph is:

No person shall be convicted of an offence under this section by reason only of having published statements relating to controversial social, economic, political or religious beliefs or opinions.

It is my contention, and the contention of these briefs and submissions, that the right of free speech must not be abridged; that the right of debate must be protected: but within the tradition of our law by these changes, as suggested, effective means could be legislated to enable the courts to deal with the particular problem. Another suggestion made by the Canadian Jewish Congress is that section 153 of the Criminal Code should be amended. The hon. member for Peace River stated he felt that under section 153 the term "scurrilous" would be sufficient to deal with

Genocide

literature which is being distributed. These other authorities do not agree with the hon. member for Peace River. It is suggested that section 153 should read as follows:

Every one commits an offence who makes use of the mails for the purpose of transmitting or delivering anything that is obscene, indecent, immoral or scurrilous or contains material a principal purpose of which is to promote hatred of or hostility against a group of persons by reason of their particular race, nationality or ethnic origin, colour or religion, but this section does not apply to a person who makes use of the mails for the purpose of transmitting or delivering anything mentioned in subsection (4) of section 151.

They suggest the following paragraph also be added:

No person shall be convicted of an offence under this section by reason of making use of the mails only for the purpose of transmitting or delivering statements the primary purpose of which is to examine controversial social, political, economic subjects or religious beliefs or opinions.

Mr. Speaker, there is another importance to these changes. It is that our Criminal Code must express our ideas of law, our ideas of our society; it must express our social ideals. If it is lacking in these particulars as an expression of our social outlook, our view of society, our conception of law, then our code should be strengthened. It is very important that our code represent the ideals for which we stand. This is part of our tradition. The universal declaration of human rights, the various declarations made by members of this house and the courts of law of this country all stand for these social ideals which I believe would be more adequately expressed if these changes were made in our Criminal Code.

There is another importance of our Criminal Code. The Criminal Code is a great educator, and I believe that by strengthening it as I have suggested, it would be a more important beacon for the people of Canada. In this age of struggle and turmoil, of great hatreds that are convulsing our society, it seems to me we should look at this question in terms of the society in which we live today, not of 80 or 90 years ago, and express more adequately those things for which we stand. We all have great admiration for the people in the United States who are fighting for civil rights for negro citizens, and the leadership of people like Martin Luther King who have put forward a non-violent protest with great distinction and great spiritual leadership not only to the people of the United States but to all of us who believe in these things.

Hear, hear.

Genocide

Mr. Gelber:

It seems to me that this parliament can express again, and more firmly, its solidarity in support of those who are struggling for freedom by saying these are things we shall do to strengthen our law and to express those ideals for which Canada stands.

Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):

Mr. Speaker, the bill which has been introduced by the hon. member has taken my interest. I have carried out considerable research on the matter, going back into the debates of 1950, and I have also studied extensively the reports of the standing committee on external affairs which sat in 1952 on the subject of the convention. Before quoting from the remarks made by the now Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) in 1952 and from the proceedings of the committee, I intend to discuss the bill itself; that is, its specific provisions.

In the explanatory notes-this, I might say, was what aroused by curiosity originally- it is set forth that the United Nations convention on the crime of genocide was tabled in the House of Commons on March 2, 1950, and in the Senate on March 14 of the same year.

Then there follow these words:

It was approved by resolution of the house on March 21, 1952 and by resolution of the Senate on March 27 of the same year.

Some 14 years after the original treaty was agreed to this bill now comes before us and the question I ask myself is, if the treaty was signed in 1950 and if both houses of the Canadian parliament ratified the convention in 1952, is there really any need for any further action in order to implement the provisions of this convention? The intention of the bill is a laudable one. In addition to the question I asked myself with regard to whether or not there was any real necessity for introducing a bill of this nature I also wondered why, if legislation was necessary to implement the provisions of the treaty, the government had not taken that action in 1952 or in subsequent years. I also went to the provisions of the Criminal Code and having had an opportunity of studying these with specific relations to the crimes of sedition and treason, a matter which I raised in the house some weeks ago with respect to certain statements of Dr. Chaput, I wondered whether these provisions were not sufficient in order to cover the crime commonly known as genocide. In particular, I was concerned about the wording of section 3 of the bill which would make everyone guilty who publishes, by words or otherwise, statements or matter

that is likely to injure a national, ethnic, racial or religious group as such, by exposing such group to hatred, contempt or ridicule, and which would subject such guilty person, on conviction for the indictable offence which the bill purports to create, to a sentence of imprisonment for five years.

In the course of answering these questions for myself I came across the debates of the House of Commons for May 21, 1952. Commencing on page 2430 there follows the debate on the ratification of the convention, the principle of which the hon. member purports to implement in the provisions of Bill C-21. The resolution introduced by the now Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), who was then secretary of state for external affairs, was in these words:

That it is expedient that the houses of parliament approve the ratification by Canada of the convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide as signed by Canada on November 28, 1949, and that this house do approve the same.

On page 2441 of Hansard for the same date these words of the present Prime Minister appear:

The genocide convention is possibly the most important source of new international criminal law which has developed since the last war. Other sources of this law are the Nuremburg principles based upon the charter and judgments of the Nuremburg tribunal, which were formulated by the international law commission of the United Nations, and also the proposed code of offences against the peace and security of mankind, which is still under consideration in the United Nations.

Since it is desirable, I think, that there should be world wide acceptance that genocide is a crime, and since the force of the convention as a source of international law depends upon its general acceptance by states, the conclusion may be logically drawn that it is best to have the widest possible acceptance by states of this convention as a source of law, even although there may be a refusal by some states to accept the enforcement provision in article IX.

He went on to say:

The following question has arisen, causing some anxiety, I believe, in the committee, and it has been referred to today by the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon).

This is the question I was looking for.

The question is this: Is any legislation required in Canada to implement within our own borders the obligations which our country will undertake under the convention? On this important matter I should like to quote the opinion of the deputy minister of justice, to whom this was referred for an opinion. He wrote as follows:-

Rather than quote from Hansard where the opinion is only quoted in part, I propose to refer to the evidence that was adduced

before the committee on external affairs in 1952. At page 232 members will find set forth verbatim the letter giving the opinion of F. P. Varcoe, then deputy minister of justice, an opinion which was accepted by the committee and obviously by the government of that day. I should like to read it into the record in its entirety.

Dear Sir:

You have asked for my opinion as to the nature of the legislation, if any, that may be required to implement the convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide to which Canada will, I understand, shortly become a signatory and, if required, whether by a general act or by amendments to the Criminal Code. You also asked for a confirmation of your assumption that no legislation on the part of the provinces would be required to implement the convention.

Dealing with your last query first, in my view the provinces are not required to introduce legislation to implement the provisions of a convention which relates in its entirety to criminal law.

I am further of the opinion that no legislation is required by Canada, at this time, to implement this convention. In this connection, I would direct your attention to the wording of article V of the convention. I do not think any legislation is "necessary", inasmuch as I cannot conceive of any act of commission or omission occurring in Canada as falling within the definition of the crime of genocide contained in article II of the convention, that would not be covered by the relevant section in the Criminal Code.

That was the opinion of Mr. Varcoe, the deputy minister of justice at that time, which was called for by the committee on external affairs and which was accepted at the time. At that time the question was considered whether or not any legislation was necessary.

Mr. Walker:

Twelve years ago.

Mr. Nielsen:

My hon. friend, the chief government whip, says it was 12 years ago, but the provisions of the convention have not altered in that regard and the provisions of the Criminal Code have not altered in that regard.

Mr. Walker:

Certain test cases have taken place in the meantime.

Mr. Nielsen:

I fail to see how the test cases that I have heard in argument here would affect the opinion of the deputy minister of justice. This is the conclusion I reached before I came across this letter when I was looking into the matter of treason and sedition prior to the bill coming up for debate. The opinion of the deputy minister referred to article V and I think it is important to put that on the record.

Genocide

Article V of the convention is to be found on page 244 of the evidence adduced before the committee in 1952, and I quote:

The contracting parties undertake to enact, in accordance with their respective constitutions, the necessary legislation to give effect to the provisions of the present convention and, in particular, to provide effective penalties for persons guilty of genocide or of any of the other acts enumerated in article III.

The important word in article V of the convention, as was noted by Mr. Varcoe in his opinion is the word "necessary". It says that the contracting parties undertake to enact, in accordance with their respective constitutions, the necessary legislation, and so on. In Mr. Varcoe's letter he says:

I do not think any legislation is "necessary", inasmuch as I cannot conceive of any act of commission or omission-

And so on. The provisions of the Criminal Code relating particularly to clause 3 of the bill before the committee, it seems to me are quite ample to cover any situation that might arise in Canada with respect to the prevention of that type of crime that the proponent of this bill seeks to make a crime by section 3. It seems superfluous to me to attempt to create an amendment to the Criminal Code under the guise of genocide-I do not say that disrespectfully to the member who introduced the bill-which is going to have no more effect than the existing provisions of the code.

This must have been the position of the government in 1950 and 1952. It must have been the position of the succeeding government and it must still be the position of this government. Surely, if this government felt that any legislation was necessary to implement the provisions of the convention concerning the crime of genocide, this government would have introduced such legislation and not have left that task to a private member. I believe that if the government is of the opinion-and they still have access to their advisers in the Department of Justice- that the crime of genocide as described in the convention ratified by both houses of the parliament of Canada, requires an amendment to the Criminal Code then I believe we, as members of the house, before proceeding any further with consideration of this bill should hear the views of the government on this score.

The matter has already been before a committee. Personally, expressing my own view, I fail to see how anything could be added to the exhaustive examination which took place in 1952 on this question of whether

Genocide

or not any further legislation was necessary by Canada to implement the terms of the convention.

There was a discussion in the committee between Mr. Lesage, Mr. Churchill and Mr. Erichsen-Brown, and we find the following exchange recorded on page 226 of the evidence:

Mr. Churchill:

Then the question is concerning the main purpose of this convention. Is it not a fact that the convention as we have it before us is a compromise document which is much less effective-or, I should not say it is much less effective-is more limited in purpose and intent than the original idea? When this was first advanced in the United Nations, as I understand it the purpose was to make the crime of genocide applicable in time of peace as it has been considered to be a crime in time of war-that is it has been recognized as a war crime but not until this time has it been recognized as a crime that can be committed in time of peace and that can be dealt with in time of peace. In its origin, when they were first discussing this, the hope was that nations and not individuals would be held responsible for the crime of genocide. Is that correct?

I think there is a certain amount of truth in that. There has been throughout the debates considerable disagreement as to whether the state had to be ultimately accountable or whether you should have to get at the individuals. The convention as presently drafted makes individuals punishable and, if you look at article IV, it refers to certain types of individuals but it does not contain a specific provision making a state as such responsible.

This is something to which we must pay attention. I continue to quote:

Mr. Churchill:

Then another question. Is it not generally understood that genocide can normally only be carried out by the action or consent of the government? That is, you cannot conceive of genocide as the act of an individual.

Mr. Low:

That is what this says.

Mr. Lesage:

It could be a group of individuals.