1965-06-18

EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the announcement from London that a Commonwealth peace mission will seek to end the war in Viet Nam, could the Acting Prime Minister, in his usual terse and informative manner, give the House the benefit of information he undoubtedly has received from London in this regard? Could he also state what is Canada's position with regard to the touring peace mission; and why was the decision made that the Prime Minister of Canada would not be one of the Commonwealth leaders represented on this mission, in view of Canada's great interest in securing stability and peace in the international sphere?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Acting Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, the day before yesterday I told the right hon. Leader of the Opposition that the Government had received a communication from the British Government and that we were aware of a proposal which was going to be made the following day by the British Prime Minister. That proposal was made yesterday and was accepted by the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference. It provides for the Prime Ministers of the countries designated, under the chairmanship of the British Prime Minister, to proceed first to the United Nations Secretary General, then to other interested countries, the United States, South and North Viet Nam, the Chinese People's Republic, and the Soviet Union, with a view to impressing on all governments concerned the desirability of entering into discussions that might bring about an end to hostilities in Viet Nam.
The Prime Minister of Canada was interested and active in suggestions with regard to this proposal. His well known participation in endeavours to provide for conditions of peace in the world, which brought him the Nobel peace prize, was undoubtedly considered when it was proposed that he be a member of this group. The Prime Minister of Canada, rightly in my judgment, took the position that, as it was desirable to have a balanced representation on this delegation of Prime Ministers of the Commonwealth it would be better if this balance were preserved. It is not that the Prime Minister did not want to participate; it is because he thought if the move were to be successful the mission must represent as many sections of the Commonwealth as was possible. This view was finally concurred in by other members of the conference.
I am sure I express the views of this Parliament, Mr. Speaker, when I say that we sincerely hope all governments concerned will receive this delegation, which represents the most important single grouping of nations in the world. The delegation will undoubtedly express, what I think most people would want them to express, namely that the problem of Viet Nam can be resolved better by conciliation and discussion than by the use of force.


Michael Starr: A supplementary question. The Acting Prime Minister said that the reason for the Canadian Prime Minister not being included in this peace mission was to preserve a balance. I wonder whether he could explain to us, because of the doubts I have on this aspect, what he means by "balance"?


Mr. Martin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker, I hope my hon. friend will not seek to give the impression-I know he would not wish to because he wants this mission to succeed, as we all do-that the position taken by the Prime Minister is open to question. The Prime Minister of Britain represents the western group of the Commonwealth in this delegation. If the Prime Minister of Canada were also to be included in this delegation of five, this would mean there would be representation from two western countries which are members of NATO. I think the position taken by the Prime Minister of Canada was not only proper but wise.
June 18, 1965

Inquiries of the Ministry INDIAN AFFAIRS


COURT DECISION RESPECTING PROVISION OF MEDICAL CARE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquiilam):: Mr. Speaker, I want to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare regarding a Canadian Press dispatch from Regina which says that the Saskatchewan health department will appeal a magistrate's ruling that all Indians should receive free hospital and medical care from the Federal Government. The dispatch goes on to say that Health Minister D. G. Stewart, in a press release yesterday, said that the appeal decision was made after consultation with Federal Government officials, and that these officials were of the opinion that the ramifications of the judgment are such that the case should be appealed.
I want to ask the Minister whether this statement is correct and, if it is, why the Canadian Government is endeavouring to evade its responsibilities in supplying health services to the Indians of this country.


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the statement is quite correct. The Minister of Health and the Attorney General of Saskatchewan have notified us of the result of the case, and consultation has been had with the Immigration Branch and the Department of Justice. The appeal will be taken because of the very far-reaching implications of the decision.
My hon. friend will recall that when he was Premier of the Province which brought in medicare legislation he did not include Indians, who thus became a different class of citizen. It is considered for the native people of the country extraordinarily important that this treaty, which contains health provisions similar to those of other treaties, be construed by a court higher than a magistrate's court so the matter may be settled once and for all.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the health and welfare of the Indian people are directly involved in the decision which may follow from this appeal, and as Indians are wards of the Government of Canada, will the Minister give consideration to the supplying of counsel, or looking after whatever expenses may be involved in procuring counsel, so the Indians' side of this case will
IMr. Martin (Essex East).]
be adequately represented when this matter comes before the court?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, perhaps my colleague the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration is able to throw more light on this question.


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, if I may I would like to supplement what the Minister of National Health and Welfare has said.
The prime concern of my Department is the welfare of the Indians. When this matter was first raised in this House and reference was made to the article in the newspapers which reported the court's decision, I gave the assurance that my Department would see to it that the Indians were provided with good counsel, if they so desired. I should like that statement to be given as much publicity as possible so that if the Indians feel they need help from my Department, they will know that help will he made available in order that their interests will be safeguarded.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask the Minister
whether it would not be much simpler and save a good deal of legal expenses on the part of the Department for the Indian Affairs Branch to accept the decision of the magistrate and provide these people with the health services to which they are entitled under the terms of the treaty?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Having practised law for a few years before I drifted into business I would say that we should not impose counsel on a client, but that it is for the litigant himself to come forward and state that he needs counsel. This individual litigant had counsel, who was successful in the lower court, and he might want that counsel to continue. If financial assistance is needed by that counsel, it will be provided within reasonable limits. If he wants to retain counsel we will see that he is able to do so, but the request must come from the litigant himself.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid the Minister misunderstood my question. 1 did not ask him about counsel. I asked him whether it would not save a good deal of legal expense on the part of the Federal Government if the Indian Affairs Branch merely accepted its responsibility for providing health services to the Indian people.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: That is a matter of Government policy, and the responsibility has been delegated to another branch of Government. In this particular case there is a legal ques-
June 18, 1965	COMMONS
tion involved of far-reaching consequences, and it has nothing to do with the point raised by my hon. friend. His question involves Government policy. A decision has been made to leave the health care of the people of Canada, to the extent that it is a Federal responsibility, in the hands of my colleague the Minister of National Health and Welfare.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: I have a question for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigation which arises out of an answer he gave earlier. In view of the fact that this particular decision in Saskatchewan concerns the interpretation of a treaty in which the Federal Government is involved, and the fact that if the decision is sustained it will impose a liability upon the Government, will the Government give consideration to intervening by counsel and, if such is the case, indicate to the House the Government's view on such intervention?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I will take the question as notice. I thank my hon. friend for having raised it. I might say I have discussed the matter with the Minister of Justice and with my colleague the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Personally I would be sympathetic to such a suggestion, but the responsibility must and does rest with the Minister of Justice.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hal):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Forestry whether, upon reflection, the speech he made respecting the Canada Wheat Board represents Government policy and, if that is so, whether it is the intention of the Government to substantially change the authority and the activity of the Canadian Wheat Board in keeping with what the Minister said.


Hon. Maurice Sauve (Minister of Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, my address at Drum-mondville was delivered in French, and it is evident in the translation-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Maurice Sauvé: Wait, please.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
DEBATES	2599
Inquiries of the Ministry


Maurice Sauvé: It is evident from the translation that some words in English have a different meaning than they have in French. In any case-


Mr. Graffley:: That's absolute nonsense.


Maurice Sauvé: In any case, I think-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Maurice Sauvé: I think if all the hon. Members were bilingual they would realize there is a distinction between the meaning of some words in French and some words in English. Take the words "demande" and "request". They have different meanings.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I should like to suggest to the Minister that he reply to the question asked him.


Maurice Sauvé: I was interrupted by hon. Members, Mr. Speaker. In any case, it was not my intention in my speech at Drummondville to criticize the operations of the Canadian Wheat Board, and if any of my words can be interpreted in this way I wish at this time to correct them. I share with all my colleagues the Government's confidence in the Canadian Wheat Board-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: Since when?


Maurice Sauvé: -but I am also very much preoccupied with the well-being of the farmers in eastern Canada and in British Columbia.


Mr. Jorgenson:: A supplementary question-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Is the hon. Member for Medicine Hat rising on a supplementary question?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask the Minister if he will provide Members of the House with his interpretation in English of what he said in Drummondville.


Maurice Sauvé: Copies have already been distributed in French to the French Members and in English to the English Members. What I said is clear. It was not my intention to criticize the operations of the Canadian Wheat Board. This is clear, and I stand on it.


Warner Herbert Jorgenson: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Notwithstanding the very weak excuse given by the Minister of Forestry, now that the Acting Prime Minister has had an opportunity to read the speech does he agree with the statements made by the Minister of Forestry and
June 18. 1965

Inquiries of the Ministry the charges he made against the Canadian	potatoes-request for inquiry into
Wheat Board?	price increase


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Forestry has made a statement which is in accord with Government policy.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: Which one?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Government's policy has been repeatedly stated by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and it is that the Government has confidence, as the Minister of Forestry has just said, in the Wheat Board. That is the Government's policy and that is what my hon. friend should be content to receive.


Warner Herbert Jorgenson: Mr. Speaker, we simply cannot be content with that reply.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


An hon. Member:: Liberal arrogance.



FEED GRAIN-REQUEST THAT IMPORTATION BE PERMITTED

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Marcel Lessard (Lac-Saint-Jean):: Mr. Speaker may I direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce in his capacity as minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board?
In view of the fact that eastern farmers will probably be unable to get feed grain at a reasonable price from the Canadian Wheat Board and since the board intends to keep on exploiting those eastern farmers, would the Minister of Trade and Commerce allow the importation of feed grain from the United States, Russia or other countries, and also grant a freight subsidy in that respect if farmers in the rest of Canada want to take advantage of this opportunity?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I do not accept any part of the preface to the question posed by the hon. Member, so it becomes hypothetical so far as I am concerned.


Marcel Lessard: That is what is taking place and has taken place over the years.

On the orders of the day:


Mr. Raymond Langlois (Megantic):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Acting Prime Minister or the Minister of Trade and Commerce.
In view of the fact that the price of Canadian potatoes has recently reached a very high level, namely approximately 9 cents a pound for last year's potatoes and 11 or 12 cents for this year's, does the Minister not agree that it would be timely to look into the matter with a view to ascertaining who controls the price of potatoes, inasmuch as they sell for about f cents a pound in the fall and Quebec and Ontario farmers could easily produce more than 10 per cent of the Canadian demand?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but I do not think this is a suitable question for the orders of the day. However, I will take it as notice and see if it is possible to answer it.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Government House Leader. Can he tell us now what he expects the program to be on Monday so that we may be able to prepare ourselves accordingly?


Hon. G. J. Mcllraiih (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday last, as appears on page 2480 of Hansard, the Acting Prime Minister indicated that on Monday we would be introducing a supply motion in order to give Members of the House, if they wished to do so, an opportunity to debate the matter of an address to Her Majesty respecting a provincial constitution. Yesterday a request came from the Leader of the Opposition that we not take a supply motion on Monday. We are agreeable to not introducing a supply motion on Monday, and we will be proceeding with the legislation on the order paper.
June 18. 1965



DELAY IN DISTRIBUTION OF FRENCH &quot;HANSARD&quot;

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Real Caoueiie (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State being absent,
I shall put my question to the Acting Prime Minister.
Once again this morning I find that, while we have our English copy of Hansard, we are still waiting for the French. Why this difference in the distribution of Hansard to members? This morning we would like to get our French copy at the same time as the other. What is the reason for this time lag between the distribution of English and French Hansard?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I share the feelings of the hon. member entirely. I do not know the exact reason, but I think one of the translators is ill. At any rate, I shall inquire and try to settle the matter.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister of which I have given notice. It is of urgency and importance to all women in employment. My question is, in view of an arbitration board decision that air lines have the right to dismiss a female employee for having changed her status from a single to a married person, will the Government give immediate consideration to amending the Bill of Rights or any other appropriate act of Parliament to stop this unwarranted, un-Canadian discrimination against married women?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. May I suggest to the hon. Member that he has made his point at the moment. Perhaps if he wants to pursue it further he may put a question on the order paper.


Harold Edward Winch: May I say that I presented this question to the Acting Prime Minister two days ago, and I understand he is prepared to give an answer.


Paul Joseph James Martin: In fairness to the hon. gentleman, it is true that two days ago he did speak to me and

Inquiries of the Ministry sent me notice of this question. I had hoped to be able to deal with it today, but I cannot. I hope to be able to deal with it next week in one way or another.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. F. Kennedy (Colchesler-Hanls):: have a question for the Minister of Veterans Affairs. In view of the Prime Minister's statement in the House on Wednesday, June 9, that veterans legislation was to receive priority attention in this session; and in view of the Minister's assurance to the same effect given in the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, can the Minister now state when this legislation will appear on the order paper so that Members may have ample time to study it in advance of debate?


Hon. Roger Teillei (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: The hon. Member may have noticed the two resolutions which appear on today's order paper, and I hope to have two others placed there during the course of next week, I hope early in the week.



EDUCATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerald A. Regan (Halifax):: In view of the extreme shortage of funds experienced by some Nova Scotia universities, and in view of the fact that Ontario universities received grants in the vicinity of $280 per student as against $180 per student in Nova Scotia, will the Minister of Finance indicate when plans for changes in the grants system to overcome this inequity will be announced, and what they will be?


Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):: I have stated in the House in answer to other questions that the Government will have to wait for the Bladen report before deciding exactly what should be done. However, I expect this whole question will be discussed at the Federal-Provincial Conference starting July 19.


Gerald Augustine Regan: I should like to speak on this matter on Monday evening at ten o'clock.


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: A supplementary question to the Minister of Finance arising out of the reply he gave to
June 18, 1965

Inquiries of the Ministry the hon. Member for Halifax. The Minister stated that no consideration can be given to the provision of increased grants to our universities until the report of the Bladen Commission has been received. Since his colleague the Secretary of State did not find it necessary to wait for the report of the Fowler Commission before announcing the implementation of colour television at Expo' 67, would the Minister not agree that education in our universities is more important than colour television?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. This is an argument.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: have a question for the Minister of Finance. No doubt he has read of the chronic unemployment situation in northern Manitoba as reported by the Provincial Government. In view of the fact that upwards of 50,000 people in northern Manitoba are unemployed, would the Minister not review his decision with respect to excluding this area from the areas designated for industrial development?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: The Government regrets very keenly that there are areas of Canada where unemployment is still much too high. I would remind the hon. Member that the over-all rate for May, 1965 was the lowest it has been for eight years.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: So I think the Government, and indeed all Members of the House, can take some satisfaction in the success of the policies which have been introduced to deal with this problem.
The particular policy to which the hon. gentleman referred is not in our opinion the kind of policy which should be continued beyond the date set for its termination under legislation approved by this House. We are examining all the kinds of policies which could be used to deal with a particular question of this kind.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Of course I am aware of the
success of the programs initiated back in 1960, but is the Government not going to initiate some policies of its own?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: My question is supplementary to the one which was directed to the Minister of Finance by the hon. Member for Brandon-Souris. The Minister appeared to imply that the question related to the program which the Government is discontinuing. I am sure the question asked by the hon. Member for Brandon-Souris relates, as does mine, to the newly announced program of grants in certain areas to encourage industrial growth. In view of the fact that northern Manitoba has been completely ignored, does the Minister think the areas in which so many native Indians and Metis live are not worthy of receiving this assistance at the present time?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I answered a similar question from the hon. Member a few days ago.


Robert Simpson: A supplementary question-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. We have had a number of supplementaries on the same question. We have only a few minutes still
available.



BILINGUALISM AND BICULTURALISM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harold Edward Winch: desire to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. I regret not having given him notice, but this matter came to my attention only a few moments ago. It is of the most urgent nature.
I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister whether it has come to his knowledge that a number of people in Vancouver have recently been asked by people who say they represent the Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism to answer a list of 199 questions, two of which are as follows: "Did you vote for Prime Minister Pearson in the last election?" and "Do you intend to vote for Prime Minister Pearson in the next election?" I should like to ask the hon. gentleman whether this type of questioning is acceptable and in line with the authority given to the Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I was not aware of this, but I will have to look into it. I may say that if these questions were put to me I would have no difficulty in answering them.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
June 18, 1965


Harold Edward Winch: I wish to ask a supplementary question. As a rule I do not ask supplementary questions because they hold others back. If the Minister cannot give a non-political answer, would he state whether an investigation will be made to determine whether this type of question should be directed to citizens under the authority of a commission on bicul-turalism and bilingualism?


Mr, Deputy Speaker:: May I suggest the hon. Member is making an argument now rather than seeking information?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Will you permit me, Mr. Speaker? I am sure the hon. Member is quite sincere in asking this supplementary question, as he was in his primary question. I did answer it. I said I would look into the situation at once.


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Perhaps the Acting Prime Minister is in a position to answer the question I put to him yesterday concerning the activities of the B and B Commission in Yugoslavia.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: I regret that I am not. I will try to be next week.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Ralph Cowan (York-Humber):: I wish to direct a question to the Acting Minister of Justice. Will the Department of Justice be taking any action against C.B.C. employees Ted Leversuch, John Cavall, Phil Styles, Peter Douett and John Ashley, who have recently aided Independent Film Artists Limited, of Toronto in producing the sex orgy film "Room for a Stranger", at Lakeshore Studios in Toronto? Is not this sex exploitation film, which features Jean Christopher, currently appearing on the C.B.C. program "Nightcap" in violation of section 150 of the Criminal Code?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. This is a question for order paper.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. Last Monday the
Customs Tariff
Minister of Finance indicated in reply to a question that he had not received any request for reconsideration of the decision regarding the pensions of superannuated civil servants. Would the Acting Prime Minister check to ascertain whether the Prime Minister has received any such communications and whether the Government is giving consideration to the request for an improvement in the pensions of retired civil servants?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I will have to take that question as notice and hope to reply to it later.



CHEESE-STEPS TO INCREASE EXPORTS TO U.S.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. H. Doucett (Lanark):: I have a question for the Minister of Trade and Commerce. According to the President of the National Dairy Council of Canada our exports of cheese to the United States are restricted to 600,000 pounds annually while the United States exports to Canada two million pounds a year. What steps are being taken by the Government in order that our exports may be increased?


Mitchell William Sharp: As a result of representations made since this Government took office we have had the quota increased once, and I hope we shall achieve another increase when the quota is next revised.
[DOT] (11:40 a.m.)



WAYS AND MEANS

[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee of Ways and Means, Mr. Lamoureux in the Chair.

[Stage Direction]
Resolved, 1. That the Customs Tariff be amended by adding thereto, immediately after section 16 thereof, the following section:
17. (1) The Governor in Council, by order, may from time to time amend
(a)	Schedules A to C, and
(b)	any lists of articles or goods the duties on which are removed or reduced pursuant to any Act or any order in council under the Customs Act or this Act,
by renumbering the items set out in Schedules A to C or in any such list but not so as to affect the status of any of those items with respect to the payment of duty.
(2) On and after the coming into force of an order under subsection (1) a reference by its former number in any Act or in any statutory or other instrument or document to any item renumbered by that order shall, unless the context
[Stage Direction]
June 18* 1665
Customs Tariff
otherwise requires, be construed to be a reference to that item as renumbered by the order.
(3) The Minister of National Revenue may, from time to time by publication in Part I of the Canada Gazette, give notice of any change required to be made, by virtue of an order under subsection (1), in any reference in any Act or in any statutory or other instrument or document to an item renumbered by the order where the reference thereto is by the former number.
2.	That Schedule A to the Customs Tariff be
amended by striking out tariff items 209 E, 210i, 263e,	384,	440m (1),	440n(l), 445z,	541a (2) and
695(c), and the enumerations of goods and the rates of duty set opposite each of those items, and by inserting therein the following items, enumerations of goods and rates of duty:
3.	That Schedule B to the Customs Tariff be amended by inserting therein the following item, enumeration of goods and rate of drawback of duty:
4.	That Schedule C to the Customs Tariff be amended by striking out item 1,220 and the enumeration of goods set opposite that item, and by inserting therein the following item and enumeration of goods:
5.	That Schedule C to the Customs Tariff be amended by inserting therein the following item and enumeration of goods:
6.	That any enactment founded upon resolutions 2, 3 and 4 of the foregoing resolutions shall be deemed to have come into force on the 27th day of April, 1965, and to have applied to all goods mentioned in the said resolutions imported or taken out of warehouse for consumption on or after that day, and to have applied to goods previously imported for which no entry for consumption was made before that day.
7.	That any enactment founded upon resolution 5 of the foregoing resolutions shall come into force on the 1st day of January, 1966, and shall apply to all goods mentioned in the said resolution imported or taken out of warehouse for consumption on or after that day, and shall apply to goods previously imported for which no entry for consumption was made before that day.
Lucien Lamoureux: Order. House again in Committee of Ways and Means, Customs Tariff resolutions. When the Committee rose last evening resolution No. 5 was being considered.


Mr. Lambert:: Mr. Chairman, at the adjournment hour last night the hon. Member for Port Arthur had called it ten o'clock, but he is not here today. He had raised a number of points with regard to paragraph 5. I had done the same a few minutes earlier, and I think in view of the rather complex nature of this item we will want a complete explanation from the Parliamentary Secretary.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. Perhaps the hon. Member would be kind enough to wait a minute until order has been restored in the Committee. Order, please. Would hon. gentlemen resume their seats?


Norman Platt Lambert: I take it that the Parliamentary Secretary is now prepared to give

us the explanation with regard to paragraph 5 and the proposed item 1221.


Mr. Pennell:: Mr. Chairman, I believe the only questions remaining unanswered are those raised by the hon. Member for Edmonton West and the hon. Member for Port Arthur. I must say that the questions they did raise appear to me to be of considerable substance. Perhaps I might deal with a question raised by the hon. Member for Port Arthur. As reported at page 2589 of Hansard the hon. Member asked this question:
-under the guise of some kind of culture some Canadian magazine in existence, and it might even be a defunct property like Liberty which probably has a copyright and is entitled to the name, to merge with some United States publications so that we would get a situation where we have in effect a replica of the Time and Reader's Digest situation.
I must concede at once that this appeared to me to be a very valid question, and I did not see the solution in the Customs Tariff Act. However, the officials have directed my attention to the Income Tax Act and I believe the answer can be found there. In other words, the hon. Member for Port Arthur was inquiring whether it would be possible for a large foreign publishing organization to make use of the title of a defunct Canadian periodical and so have in Canada a periodical which would draw its editorial matter from different periodicals in the United States or elsewhere. I should like to point out that under the income tax resolution such a publication, even though printed in Canada, would not qualify as Canadian by virtue of section 5(a)(ii)(F). Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, I may refer to that section, which defines what is meant by "Canadian issue":
but does not include an issue of a periodical
(E) that is produced or published under a licence granted by a person who produces or publishes issues of a periodical that are printed, edited or published outside Canada-
Then going to subparagraph (F):
the contents of which, excluding advertisements, are substantially the same as the contents of an issue of a periodical, or the contents of one or more issues of one or more periodicals, that was or were printed, edited or published outside Canada;
I believe that covers the very fundamental point raised by the hon. Member for Port Arthur. He went on to raise a further question. The hon. Member was concerned about the effect of this legislation on the entry into Canada of publications such as Saturday Evening Post, New Republic, Harper's and other prominent publications which circulate
June 18, 1965



nationally both in the United States and in Canada.
May I say, Mr. Chairman, that it does not seem to me, with respect, that the proposed tariff item will have much effect on the circulation of this type of publication in Canada. None of these periodicals, so far as I am informed, at present publishes split runs or regional editions, and to this extent they will not be affected by the provisions of item 1221 (1). These periodicals, of course, like all foreign periodicals will be required to meet the test of item 1221 (2). In other words they will have to ensure that not more than 5 per cent of the advertising space in any issue consists of space used for advertisements indicating specific sources of availability in Canada. I doubt very much whether this will prove to be a very onerous requirement for these publications, and I believe that most of the foreign periodicals which circulate in Canada are already meeting these requirements.
The hon. Member went on to raise a third question about the scope of the exemptions in the proposed tariff item as they relate to such publications as coin catalogues. I acknowledge that this is a matter that would have to be examined very carefully by the customs officials in each individual case to see whether the publication in question was a genuine catalogue or simply a trade magazine. This is going to require the exercise of judgment, but I think so far as these catalogues are concerned the officials have been on the whole rather generous in their interpretations.
The fourth point raised by the hon. Member for Port Arthur dealt with special issues of publications devoted to Canada. The question here is whether they are special editions for circulation in Canada, in which case they would be prohibited under item 1221 (1) if they contained any advertisement primarily directed to a market in Canada. So that while it may be a special edition devoted to Canada, the test is whether the advertising is primarily directed to a market in Canada. For instance, you could have a special issue devoted to Canada but directed to a market in the United States. You might have a travel magazine publishing a special issue to bring tourists into Canada, so the advertising would be directed to people in the United States although there would be a special issue devoted to Canada.
I should also point out that if a travel magazine published a special issue devoted to news and articles about Canada, and the
Customs Tariff
edition that it was proposed to circulate in Canada was the same as all editions distributed in the country of origin, it would qualify for entry under 1221 (1). It would, of course, still be subject to the test under item 1221 (2). The last few lines of 1221 (2), if I could draw them to the attention of the Committee, provide in effect an exemption from prohibition in such special issues if they are not directed primarly to a market in Canada.
I believe I have touched on the main points raised by the hon. Member for Port Arthur. I must apologize openly, but I misplaced my notes and have not been able to look at the questions raised by the hon. Member for Edmonton West. If he would be kind enough to bring them to my attention again I will endeavour to do my best to answer them.


Norman Platt Lambert: Mr. Chairman, I was particularly interested in the effect of Schedule C to the Customs Tariff. As the Parliamentary Secretary knows, the Customs Tariff schedules form a monumental book which is not available to Members generally. I did have a copy at one time, but I had to return it to the Department. What is the effect of Schedule C? Is this a category of prohibited goods? Is it a particular level of tariff? I doubt that very much, because there are no rates spelled out in the resolution. Therefore I assume that this may be a prohibitive type of regulation.
[DOT] (11:50 a.m.)
I find it rather difficult to understand how we can justify prohibiting the entry of a magazine or periodical into this country, even if it included a split run, with advertising directed primarily to Canadians. What is going to be the effect of the inclusion in Schedule C of this type of periodical? If there is to be a complete exclusion, then of course there is restriction of another kind, a form of censorship; a restriction in the circulation of publications. On the other hand, if this provision means that there shall be some special customs rate applied by way of deterrent to this type of periodical so as to make it not competitive, or the Canadian advertisers are to be denied the income tax expense allowance on the cost of advertising, then we should like this point cleared up.
In addition, the Parliamentary Secretary will note the item 1221 (1) speaks of regulations prescribed by the Governor in Council and refers to an effective date of September 30, 1965. I assume that is when the provision "Thou shalt not enter" will come into force.


Lawrence T. Pennell: The date is January 1, 1966.

June 18, 1965
Customs Tariff


Norman Platt Lambert: Well, there are two dates. Item 1221 (1) says:
Issues of a periodical, one of the four immediately preceding issues of which, if such preceding issue is dated after September 30, 1965, has, under regulations prescribed by the Governor in Council-
Now, when is it anticipated that the Governor in Council will make these regulations? Would these regulations be specifically tabled in the House? I note they will have to be published in the Canada Gazette, but this is such an important area of activity on the part of, shall we say, Canadianization or the sanitization of Canadians that I think the House must be extremely careful and jealous of just what is going to be done. After all, this House may give conditional approval to this type of provision-although I personally have some doubts about it-which could be completely extended under the regulations prescribed by the Governor in Council. This would be a wonderful opportunity for the committee on delegated legislation which has been proposed by the Committee on Procedure, and which many Members on this side would have included in Standing Order 65. This is the type of regulation we want to look at and examine so it does not go beyond the authority granted by Parliament.
Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary is now prepared to give us give us some explanation in this regard.


Lawrence T. Pennell: I might say that the hon. Member for Edmonton West, with his usual perceptive eye, has correctly diagnosed, I think, the intention of this item. As I understand it there will be a prohibition here, subject to these magazines being brought within the exemption spelled out in paragraph 5.
If I may deal with the last part of his question whether these regulations will be tabled in the House? I can only assume that we would follow the regular course.


Norman Platt Lambert: They would be published in the Canada Gazette.


Lawrence T. Pennell: That is right; my hon. friend interjects correctly. I also understand that the publishing firms have been in close contact with officials of the Department. They are people who, of course, will be very directly concerned with this legislation. They are aware of all its implications, and when it does come into effect I think they will be in the position to make the necessary adjustments to meet the requirements of the amendment.

I doubt whether there is anyone more informed as to the effect of this legislation than the hon. Member. The point is that there has been a significant amount of magazine advertising directed to Canadians which has originated from companies situated outside of Canada. This legislation is aimed at containing that practice. I think it is recognized that this proposal is fairly well on all fours with the recommendation of the Royal Commission, with one slight exception with regard to the 5 per cent referred to in item 1221(2). So these magazines will be prohibited, as the item says.
There are two parts to item 1221. The first part says there will be a prohibition if it is an issue of a special edition, including a split run or a regional edition, that contains an advertisement that is primarily directed to a market in Canada and that does not appear in identical form in all editions of that issue of that periodical that were distributed in the country of origin. The second exception deals with the regular, ordinary issue, where it is found that more than 5 per cent of the advertising space consists of advertisements that indicate specific sources of availability in Canada, or specific terms or conditions relating to the sale or provision in Canada of any goods or services, except where the indication of such sources of availability or such terms and conditions is primarily directed to persons outside Canada.
I think that last exception covers the point raised regarding travel magazines. They would be directed to a market primarily outside of Canada. Although there could be a split edition relating to Canada, it might still be a regular edition.
On the question of date, the hon. Member asked about the effect of item 1221 (1), which refers to an issue dated after September 30, 1965. The only explanation I can offer-and this is subject to correction-is that it seems to me that if it came into effect on January 1, 1966, then if any one of the four preceding issues of a monthly publication violated the exemption clause, it would be prohibited. I think that is the proper explanation, although as I say it is subject to correction. I see the hon. Member is nodding his head, so it appears to be a reasonable explanation.


Norman Platt Lambert: Just one further point. With regard to the regulations which will be prescribed by the Governor in Council, I realize that the normal procedure would likely be that they would be published in the Canada Gazette. However, in view of the fact that
June 18, 1985

we are stepping out into a new area, I wonder whether we could have an undertaking from the Parliamentary Secretary that when the regulations are proclaimed the Minister of National Revenue will table a copy in the House of Commons, notice of which would then appear in Votes and Proceedings. If this notice appeared in Votes and Proceedings then hon. Members would be alerted and would know just how far the regulations were intended to go.
[DOT] (12:00 noon)
It is true that these are published in the Canada Gazette, but there is not as much attention paid to that publication by Members as there is to Votes and Proceedings. If notice was printed in that public document we would have at least that additional notice and would perhaps then be more careful.


Lawrence T. Pennell: I understand the concern of the hon. Member. It has just been brought to my attention by the officials that the regulations may be tabled in the House if so desired, and in view of the expressed desire of the hon. Member I am confident that they will be tabled.


Gerald William Baldwin: I should like to comment briefly and ask one or two questions of the Parliamentary Secretary in respect of the particular issue to which my hon. friend from Edmonton West has referred, and that is the matter of these regulations.
Is the Parliamentary Secretary in a position to say whether these regulations will provide that the finding which is to be made will be a finding contained in an order in council, or will it be a finding to be made by a departmental official? I ask this question in respect of Vote 1 and Vote 2. In other words, will these regulations simply lay down the procedure, indicating the means by which a finding will be made, or will they indicate the rights of those involved to appear and make representations?
I ask these questions because there is a very fundamental issue involved here, and I cannot resist the opportunity to refer to the fact that this issue emphasizes the correct position taken on this side of the House when we attempted to provide that there should be a committee of the House to which cases of delegated authority could be submitted from time to time if the necessity arose. Of course that issue has been decided and I am not in a position to reargue it, but the circumstances here emphasize the fact that when you are breaking new ground, you are getting involved in new issues.
Joint Committee on Penitentiaries
I think the issue regarding these regulations is very important in spite of the fact that certain conditions are laid down in the amendment. There is a very large field left open which will have to be dealt with by regulation, and I am anxious to know at this time whether the Parliamentary Secretary can advise us as to what the procedure will be when the regulations are in fact enacted. Can he also inform us as to the method by which these findings will be made?


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Chairman, I must apologize to the hon. Member for not being able to give him a firm answer in this regard, but I think he appreciates my position. The regulations have yet to be drafted, and I do not know just what form they will take. However, due to the alertness of his colleague, the hon. Member for Edmonton West, these regulations will be tabled and will be open to scrutiny at that time. I am sorry I cannot give a more complete answer.


Norman Platt Lambert: It may well be that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance is in the position I find myself in, not having a copy of the Customs Tariff Act before me. Certainly I cannot remember them. What are the provisions for appeal in respect of Schedule C? I realize that the regulations may spell this out, but what are the provisions for appeal; and if there are none of a meaningful nature, then we must consider the situation which developed in 1961 when great objection was taken because there was no appeal provided under this particular act in respect of the determination of goods of a class or kind. If there is to be no appeal now, then I wonder what all the hollering was about in 1961, and whether it was not synthetic.


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Chairman, I understand that there is provision for an appeal to the Tariff Board.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. MacNaughl thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-120, to amend the Customs Tariff.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


PENITENTIARIES
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Monday, May 17, consideration of the motion of Mr. Mcllraith (for the Minister of Justice):
June 18. 1865
[Stage Direction]
Joint Committee on Penitentiaries That a joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons be appointed to consider the state of penitentiaries under the control of the Government of Canada and the plans of the Government in relation thereto with powers to report from time to time its observations and opinions thereon; send for persons, papers and records; adjourn from place to place; sit during sittings of the House; and print from day to day such papers and evidence as may be ordered by the committee, and that Standing Order 65 be suspended in relation thereto;
That 15 Members of the House of Commons, to be designated at a later date, act on behalf of the House as Members of the said committee; and That a message be sent to the Senate requesting that House to unite with this House for the above purpose, and to select, if the Senate deem advisable, some of their Members to act on the proposed joint committee.
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, this subject was last discussed about a month ago, and at that time I said it seemed to me strange that the Government was proposing to set up a parliamentary committee to study the Canadian penitentiary system at the same time that a committee of experts headed by Mr. Justice Ouimet is studying the whole question of correction. It seems to me completely irresponsible on the part of the Government to be planning a major program of building penitentiaries to house people convicted of crimes before it has established just what the whole correctional program is to be.
I am not alone in this feeling, Mr. Speaker. If one reads the speeches which have been made by people who work in this field, and reads the articles which have appeared not only in technical journals but in newspapers and magazines across Canada, he will come to the same conclusion.
It is not often that I find myself in agreement with the Financial Post, but as long ago as August, 1963 that paper carried an article in relation to the whole question of Canadian prisons. That article pointed out several very interesting things. First of all, it stated that the Canadian prison population rose from 22,747 in 1962 to 23,512 in 1963. In the same period it pointed out that Britain's prison population dropped from 31,700 to 29,000. In view of the fact that Britain has a population approximately three times as large as the population of Canada, it is obvious that their approach is much more successful than the approach taken by Canada in this regard.
This article, as carried by the Winnipeg Free Press of November 14, 1964 stated: Physical conditions in some of our jails (and penitentiaries) are notoriously disgraceful. Overcrowding and poor discipline lead to riot. In Canada the percentage of released prisoners who 
return to crime and are again locked up is exceptionally high.
It further states:
We have no accepted official philosophy. We do not know whether we are merely trying to deter crime and protect society by isolating lawbreakers or whether our objective, in accordance with modern thought, is rehabilitation.
[DOT] (12:10 p.m.)
In November of 1964 a series of articles appeared in the Winnipeg Free Press dealing with the problem of correction and penal reform, written by Mrs. Ellen Simmons, who has given a great deal of study to the question. I want to quote a couple of paragraphs from one article which appeared on November 16, 1964. She said:
What is needed first therefore-before any innovations in penal reform can hope for measurable, lasting success-is a clear, unflinchingly openeyed and open-minded look at the system, if indeed it may be called a system, in use in Canada today. Specific reforms that have been proposed are meaningful only in the total context of a coherent purposeful philosophy for the treatment of lawbreakers.
She points out some examples of what is wrong and the differences between provinces. I continue quoting:
For example, the use of probation is almost unknown in Prince Edward Island. It is seldom used in Quebec. But in Ontario probation is used in some 21 per cent of cases involving offences against property. Similarly, suspended sentences are used most sparingly in British Columbia, while in Manitoba they are used with a comparatively free hand.
I give these illustrations because it seems to me it is completely wrong for the Government to propose that a parliamentary committee look at the building program when that program has already been decided upon by the Government. When I spoke on this matter over a month ago I mentioned that a judge familiar with the Government's program in Ontario had made a speech in which he said that well over $100 million would be spent for new prisons by the Canadian Government in the next 10 years. I am not opposed to new buildings or the rebuilding of our institutions. Most of them date back many years. Most of them are a disgrace to any civilized country. But surely before going ahead with a program we ought to know what we are doing, what the requirements are and what kind of people are going to be put in the institutions we intend to build.
There is no better illustration of the fact that we do not know these things and have not arrived at any conclusions than the special detention units which are planned
June 18. 1965
and in fact are already being built. I understand that the one in Quebec is going ahead at a great rate. It is not my intention to read into the record again the whole of the telegram sent to the Minister of Justice by the Canadian Corrections Association, but as it is more than a month since I spoke on the matter I should like to read one paragraph:
These special detention units are completely unacceptable to the Canadian Corrections Association on the basis of scientific evidence related to the effects of psychological and physical isolation. Among other things we fear the deterioration of inmates who are confined in cells without windows.
I had an opportunity to discuss this matter with a psychiatrist who works in Canadian prisons. I am not going to mention his name because he told me that he intended to discuss the matter directly with the Minister of Justice, whom he knows. However, I think I can quote him almost exactly. He said it was his intention to say to the Minister of Justice that on the basis of his experience in working with prisoners who are emotionally and mentally disturbed, it was his view that if a person was not psychotic before entering one of these institutions which the Government is proposing to build he would almost certainly be psychotic by the time he got out. Despite the unanimous advice of experts in the field, the Government and the Minister stubbornly insist on going ahead with the building program. It seems to me that to ask a parliamentary committee to look into these matters when the Government has already indicated to the people interested that they intend to go ahead is really ridiculous and a waste of time.
I want to make a further point with regard to the prison building program. It seems to me and to other people that if we send people to prison we ought to know why we are sending them there. It seems to me that before sending people to prison we should ask ourselves whether it is best for them to be sent to prison or would it be better to try something else. Ontario and British Columbia have been very successful with their systems of probation. People convicted of crimes are placed under the supervision of probation officers rather than being sent to prison.
Rather than a costly program of building institutions for the confinement of people, it seems to me that we should be expanding our probation system. I know that because of divided jurisdiction the matter of probation comes under the provinces, but I can see no reason why the Federal Government should not co-operate financially in a vast expansion 22620-166J
Joint Committee on Penitentiaries of the probation system so the prison population of Canada would go down instead of going up from year to year. I am satisfied, and the experts are satisfied, that the results then would be much better than they have been.
The Minister has appointed a committee to look at the whole question of corrections, and in the resolution now before us he is proposing to appoint a parliamentary committee to look at our prison institutions. If there is one thing we have done in the field of corrections in this country, it has been to appoint royal commissions and committees of experts to look at the problem. But once they have made their reports, which have been excellent, we have promptly forgotten them; they have been filed away to gather dust.
When the Parliamentary Secretary spoke on this subject he referred to the Archambault report. I do not know why he did so when he could have referred to the more recent Fauteux report. I do not want to go into detail with regard to the Fauteux report, but I should like to quote one recommendation which is found on page 87. The Commission recommended as follows:
Some means should be found whereby the courts, at all levels, may be made more conscious that the true purpose of punishment is the correction of the offender and not mere retribution by society.
That was true when the Fauteux report was published almost 10 years ago, and it is true today. Professor Angus made a speech in Alberta recently in which he was critical of the kind of people who are appointed as judges.


Norman Platt Lambert: He had holes in his head.


David Orlikow: The hon. Member for Edmonton West says he had holes in his head. I happen to agree with Professor Angus. The Minister of Justice was also quite critical of this professor. I want to put on record some of the sentences that have been pronounced in recent days from one end of Canada to the other. I quote from the Globe and Mail of May 12, 1965. The article is rather short and is headed "Quebec Convict Hangs Himself with His Belt". As the story is not long I will put the whole thing on the record. The article reads as follows:
Police said Saturday that Jean-Guy Genereux, 28, a prisoner at nearby St. Vincent de Paul Penitentiary, hanged himself with his belt Friday night. Details were sketchy but police said Genereux, serving a 13 year term for the armed robbery of a suburban Verdun hardware store, was found dead in his cell around 10.30 p.m.
Genereux was sentenced by Sessions Judge Jacques Trahan Wednesday. He admitted robbing the

June 18. 1965

Joint Committee on Penitentiaries
store February 11. He was captured minutes alter the robbery and police recovered $10.77 taken from the store and another $7 from a post office on the premises. Before sentencing Genereux, Judge Trahan said: "Making long speeches to people like you is a waste of time and the only way to deal with animals like you is to lock you up for a considerable length of time."
[DOT] (12:20 p.m.)
I wonder, Mr. Speaker, whether Judge Trahan has ever heard of the Fauteux Commission or its recommendations. What kind of impartial, objective attitude is this for a judge to take? Here was a man who appeared in court before Judge Trahan the day after he was apprehended for the tremendous crime of robbery which netted him some $17. He appeared without counsel. I challenge anybody in this House to question my statement that had he had counsel, in any part of Canada, no judge or magistrate would have spoken the way Judge Trahan spoke. What kind of judge is it, what kind of human is it who would speak in such terms of a person who is in trouble? He called this person an animal. Mr. Speaker, I think Judge Trahan should be in prison for that kind of speech. A person with this approach is a disgrace to Canadian courts. When the Minister of Justice and the Member for Edmonton West defend that kind of judge, I do not believe they realize the situation we are facing.
Well, Mr. Speaker, Judge Trahan is not alone. I have before me a photostatic copy of the Montreal Gazette for September 21, 1963 in which there are two stories side by side. One story has this headline: "Crown Witness in $500,000 Theft Gets One Day, Plus Time in Jail". I quote from the article:
Jacques Lajoie, the 38 year old star witness for the crown in a $500,000 bank vault burglary case of April, 1962, pleaded guilty yesterday to being a participant in the spectacular robbery and had a one day prison term tacked on to the 21 months he has been in jail.
It is interesting to note, incidentally, that he appeared before Mr. Justice Roger Ouimet, who is on the committee which has been appointed by the Minister to look into the whole question of corrections. Right below this article there is another story which carries the headline: "$1.65 Loot-10 years". I quote from the article:
Violent and audacious crimes which today have become common place in Montreal will not be stopped by goodwill and kindness any more effectively than would cancer in the human body.
Then I quote from what Judge Claude Wagner said:
[Mr. Orlikow.l
"The courts must act as surgeons," declared Sessions Judge Claude Wagner yesterday afternoon in a judgment which found Philip Moffat, Tasse St., guilty of an armed robbery of a pair of gloves worth $1.65 from a Verdun store.
Judge Wagner sentenced Moffat to ten years in penitentiary.
Again, I am sure Mr. Philip Moffat had no counsel, so that on very short notice he was tried and sentenced to ten years. Anyone who is involved in something like Windfall or something like Texas Sulphur, where the stakes are much greater than $1.65 and run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars, can afford eminent counsel who can spin out the time before justice catches up with him. He can get off with a reprimand or a pat on the wrist, it seems to me. The hon. Member for Timiskaming reminds me that he may even keep his judgeship, but that is a subject we can discuss on another occasion.
It seems to me we have a great deal of work to do, and not just the appointment of a committee. I do not want to be accused of being anti-Quebec because the two illustrations I used were from the Province of Quebec. I should like to put on record a few paragraphs from a case in my own city, my own Province, concerning a husband and wife who happened to live in the constituency of my hon. friend the Member for Winnipeg North Centre, and who happened to be Indians. They were charged with a breach of the Child Welfare Act. They appeared before Magistrate Isaac Rice, Q.C. several months ago. Again, they appeared without counsel. I feel this is one of the most disgraceful cases I have ever read, and I should like to read into the record part of the testimony. I quote:
Magistrate: Hold old are you?
A. Thirty-four.
Magistrate: Thirty-four, and you have already brought in 12 children into the world. She is
good for another 15 at the rate she is going. You are young enough to produce a lot more-
Then the Crown Prosecutor, Mr. Montgomery, said:
Your Worship, I can make a respectful submission as to how there might be five less children.
The magistrate asked how, and Mr. Montgomery answered:
Under the particular statute, the legislature has provided for a term of imprisonment of up to five years.
What a travesty of justice. Now, is there a single member of this House who can say that if the people appearing before the magistrate had not been Indians living in a slum area of Winnipeg but had been white Anglo-Saxon Protestants living in the constituency
June 18. 1965

of the hon. Member for Winnipeg South, the magistrate would have spoken so irresponsibly?


Mr. Pugh:: You mean the Member appeared before the magistrate?


David Orlikow: No, I said if it had been one of her constituents or a constituent of any Member or former Member of Parliament. What I am trying to say is that in this country, unfortunately, we have one law for the well to do, the people who have money and can be represented by counsel, and another, entirely different and much harsher law for people who do not have the money to obtain counsel who will help to defend them and who will also assure that the kind of sentence they get will be much less.
These are things, Mr. Speaker, which people expert in the field have been discussing for a long period of time. These are the things which this Government seems to be ignoring. We have appointed another committee, headed by Mr. Justice Ouimet and composed of some excellent members. I know some of the members and they will not be the kind of rubber-stamp committee which this Government so often wants. I am hopeful, in fact I am certain, they are going to make some excellent recommendations. It seems to me that unless we do a great deal more about the recommendations they are likely to make than past Parliaments have done about the Archambault report and the Fauteux report, Canada will continue to be among the last half dozen of the western industrialized countries in so far as their records in the field of corrections are concerned.
I am not going to oppose the setting up of this committee, because the Government has indicated clearly it intends to proceed. I hope the work of this committee will not be done in a vacuum; that the Government will realize that they cannot simply build prisons without at the same time looking at the whole field of correction, the whole field of probation, sentencing and bail. My colleague the hon. Member for Danforth raised the serious question of bail the other day and received a miserable, disgraceful answer from the Parliamentary Secretary, one of the worst I have heard since I have been in the House. If that is an indication of the seriousness with which the Department regards legitimate questions about the system of corrections in this country, then we are indeed in for some difficult periods. They will be difficult in this House because I can tell the Parliamentary

Joint Committee on Penitentiaries Secretary that if he continues that line in committee-I presume he will be a member- we will have many long hours of sitting. The Members on this side of the House are not going to take the nonsensical kind of argument he produced the other night.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, the committee will work in co-operation with the special committee which the Minister of Justice has appointed. I hope we will get on with the work, and that it will not be years before we can begin the major task of reorganizing the correctional system of this country so the purpose may become rehabilitation rather than punishment, as has been the case for the last 100 years.
[DOT] (12:30 p.m.)


William Heward Grafftey: I agree with very much of what has been said by the previous speaker. For years we have talked about the shocking state of our penal institutions in Canada. Reports of various commissions and committees have been debated in the House of Commons. The previous speaker mentioned the Archambault report, the report of the Fauteux commission and reports of committees such as the present Government is now instigating. The recommendations contained in all these reports have been abundantly clear. I will refer to them later, though I make special reference in passing to one of the best commission reports ever published in the Dominion of Canada; that is the Archambault report. I think all hon. Members will agree that the subject we are discussing today can be considered in a bipartisan sense.
Much has been done in this field of penal reform in the past few years, but it is still too little. I know that in 1957 the party which I support did its best. There were many accomplishments to our credit in such fields as the ticket of leave and parole system, getting a realistic building program under way, and properly staffing our penal institutions. While I would be the first to admit that we have only made a beginning and, in a sense, a poor beginning, and that far too little has been accomplished, a start has certainly been made in the field of penal reform.
Along with Members opposite I recognize the difficulties which are involved. Sometimes it is very hard in this day and age to rally public opinion behind modern concepts of penology. I believe all governments have encountered this difficulty, but that is no excuse for failure to bring up this subject
June 18, 1965

Joint Committee on Penitentiaries time and time again on the floor of the House of Commons so that real advances can be made.
I think it is correct to say that in comparison with other countries we in Canada have an unbelievable number of inmates in our prisons; and not only in prisons but in prisons where the conditions are appalling. I will not belabour the House with statistics, but this seems abundantly clear from the figures which are available. It seems to me incredible that in relation to our population we should have such a large prison population both federal and provincial. For one reason or another we have an astonishingly high prison population in Canada compared with other countries in the western world.
We need to build many new penal institutions based on modern concepts. A beginning was made when we were in power, and the present Government is continuing this program and advancing new programs. But not enough has been done. The casual offender must be separated from the hardened criminal. This is a recommendation which has been made for years and years, but it is one which in the truest sense has not been carried out. In the whole field of penology we lack scores of probation and parole officers. Drug addiction and alcoholism have become major problems. We lack treatment centres for those who suffer from both these types of addiction. Many offenders in these categories should be treated immediately in centres where attention is paid to the modern science of psychiatry instead of being sent as they are now to old fashioned prisons. But what are we doing? Recommendations by one commission after another are listened to respectfully, but somehow or other we continue to send these people to old fashioned prisons after offences have been committed.
The consequences are abundantly clear. These people return to society and immediately repeat the same or similar crimes. We lack modern treatment centres, despite the need to send many people to such centres rather than to prison or other institutions built and staffed on archaic lines. Today these people are invariably sent to prisons, at high cost to the Government and at high cost to individual dignity. They are not cured and the public is not protected. Men or women who could be rehabilitated are not rehabilitated. An offender is released from prison and returns to society to commit the same or similar crimes.
I intend to quote some statistics. What are these statistics in Canada today? In 1964

some 74.2 per cent of those in federal penitentiaries had previously been committed to correctional institutions either federal or provincial. Need I say any more about the success of our system, a system of which no Member of this House of Commons should be proud? I do not say this in a party sense. I am sure Members in all corners of this House wish to co-operate in bettering the present system. That is why, I hope, we are setting up the new committee.
In the case of juvenile offenders there is a woeful lack of social welfare workers, judges, probation officers and parole officers. Young offenders, in addition to being segre-grated from older and more hardened criminals, must be able to continue their education while in institutions. Upon their release they must be able to re-enter society with every chance of obtaining employment. This means continuing vocational or academic training within the institution. I am glad that some advances have been made in this regard, but these advances have been minimal both when we were in power and under the administration of members opposite.
What is needed is action, and action now, as the hon. Member who spoke previously said so well. I realize it is difficult in a largely materialistic society to get public opinion behind such a program, but it is my hope the Government will realize the real need for action, and action now, rather than wait for the findings contained in yet another report. [DOT] (12:40 p.m.)
Before I go further I want to discuss something which I feel should be placed on the record immediately. Both inside and outside this House of Commons we often get into conversations relating to various aspects of penology; whether it should be rehabilitative or punitive, and that sort of tiling. But I think when we consider the success of our system we should have a more objective test. We should ask ourselves what are we doing to protect society; what are we doing to rehabilitate and upgrade, if you will, the prisoner himself; what are we doing to reduce the level of recidivism in this country? If we apply these standards to measure the success of our whole system of penology in Canada we find that we are doing a very poor job.
I think every Member of the Canadian House of Commons should be aware of the following statistics. What percentage of those committed to penal institutions in Canada had a previous commitment to a penitentiary
June 18>
1965

only, namely an institution under federal jurisdiction? In 1961 the figure was 42 per cent; in 1962, 41.3 per cent; in 1963, 41.1 per cent; in 1964, 41.6 per cent. But the following statistics are even more astounding, Sir. What percentage of those committed had previous commitments to any correctional institution, be it federal or provincial? These, Sir, are most appalling statistics. In 1961, 72.2 per cent; in 1962, 76.7 per cent; in 1963, 76.8 per cent; and in 1964, 77.2 per cent.
What does this mean in hard facts? It means that at this moment, on June 18, 1965, in the case of people released from our institutions, be they federal or provincial there is almost an 80 per cent chance that they will go out into society and commit the same or similar crimes. These figures should be really digested by all Members of the House and by the Canadian public. Surely they show that in this area the main things that are good in modern penology are not being done in Canada. In the light of these statistics we are not protecting the public, our women and children and the population in general. Certainly in the light of these statistics we are not rehabilitating offenders, and we are not bringing down the percentage of recidivism in our prison population.
I understand, and support in a sense, the setting up of a committee such as we are discussing today. But surely it will be a committee that will discuss some modem penology concepts; because the statistics and what I have already said show that we in Canada are decades behind in the field of social reform. They show that we have not even begun to move forward in embracing and implementing the major, modern concepts of penology. I simply want to say, Sir, that I fully realize that in a field such as penology, in view of the advances that have been made in the last two decades in psychiatric research and treatment, we are faced with the application of many new and modern concepts, and certainly we should apply them.
Perhaps the Archambault report as such did not make too much reference to these modern concepts which have come to light in the last two decades. But I want to illustrate right now why many people in Canada become cynical about royal commissions, why many people in Canada become cynical about Parliament setting up committees, why many people in Canada become cynical about meeting after meeting,
Joint Committee on Penitentiaries commission after commission, when what is needed is action.
Surely we haven't the nerve to go out and tell the people that a lot is going to be done by a parliamentary committee when the major recommendations of a 1938 royal commission have not even been touched upon or discussed sensibly in this House of Commons.
The hon. Member who just spoke rightfully talked about a more modem inquiry into our penal system, namely the Fauteux Commission. We are now talking in glowing terms about what this parliamentary committee is going to do, but let me take the time of the House for a few moments to discuss some of the major recommendations of the Archambault report. Let us ask ourselves whether they have been truly implemented, and whether we really need a parliamentary committee to tell us what needs to be done today, not tomorrow, in the field of modern penal reform.
This is why the Canadian people become cynical. When a government should act, when a government should move forward almost without debate in the House of Commons, they set up a parliamentary committee or a royal commission. In this case it is even more serious, because anybody who has read the Archambault report would recognize and understand that it is one of the greatest, most important and best drafted royal commission reports in the whole history of this nation.
I believe that a great deal of importance should be attached to a parliamentary committee if it is going to act. But let us briefly search our consciences and look over some of the basic recommendations of the Archambault Royal Commission report. Then let us ask ourselves honestly whether these recommendations have been carried out. Let us ask ourselves, do we need another parliamentary committee in order to tell us what needs to be done?
I will enter a caveat here, Sir, and say there are some detailed matters which this committee should consider; there are some modem concepts that the committee should deal with. I refer to concepts which have come to light since the Archambault report and its recommendations were drafted. But in the next few minutes I am going to talk about the necessity to act today, not tomorrow, on some of the major recommendations of this report. Surely, Sir, when I read some of the recommendations drafted in the year 1938 by this eminent gentleman and his assistants on that Royal Com-
June 18, 1965

Joint Committee on Penitentiaries mission it will be abundantly clear why so many Canadians become cynical about royal commissions and parliamentary committees.
What did the Commissioner say, Sir, about the general approach to penology as such? He said in his recommendations that our whole concept should be based on the protection of society. Surely I have given statistics which show that we are not protecting society very well under our present penal system. He talked about the safe custody of inmates. I have no statistics in this connection, Sir. I am sure we have as many or as few escapes as other countries. Then the commissioner spoke about strict but humane discipline. I do not know how we compare with other countries in this regard. Then he dealt with the reform and rehabilitation of prisoners. I have already said that we have done a woeful job in this regard.
[DOT] (12:50 p.m.)
What do these recommendations go on to say regarding the classification of prisoners? With the modern buildings to house inmates being built at the present time under the direction of the Department of Justice, advances are going to be made in this direction. But surely not enough advances are being made; we are moving too slowly. I think primarily of St. Vincent de Paul and Kingston penitentiaries. If more Canadians were made to visit these institutions the Minister and his assistants would surely have a much easier time in geting public opinion behind the important work which I know the Government is trying to do in this regard.
How far have we gone in the last 30 years in carrying out these recommendations, and what will a further committee of this House be able to tell us about classification of prisoners? The Archambault commission reported that a complete revision of classification of prisoners should be made, with provision for a thorough medical and psychiatric examination. Their next recommendation is:
The necessary legislation should be enacted to provide for sentencing habitual offenders to preventive detention in a separate institution to be provided for that purpose.
Thirty years after this recommendation was made we are barely beginning to scratch the surface, and now all we are doing is setting up another parliamentary committee. They further recommended:
All incorrigible and intractable prisoners in the penitentiaries should be segregated in one institution.
Separate institutions, based on the principles of the English Borstal system, should be established

to permit of special treatment being given to young offenders between sixteen and twenty-one years of age.
We have made a beginning here, but only a very small beginning. The recommendation continues:
There should also be a classification centre and three grades in each unit, each grade to be separately located and not contiguous to another. Two units should be established at once, one in the
Province of Ontario, and one in the province of Quebec-
The next recommendation is:
All insane prisoners should be entirely removed from the prison population and treated in hospitals for the insane.
This bears on my recommendation that something be done to fill the great need today for psychiatric units, not only for the insane but also for drug addicts and alcoholics, instead of just throwing them into prison and hoping that after five or six years they will be able to emerge into public life without having had any treatment. Then it is recommended that:
The mentally deficient should be segregated in the ordinary institutions under the direction of a trained psychiatrist.
Intractable and recidivist drug addicts should be removed on the order of the prison commission to the prison for habitual offenders.
A scheme of classification should be established in each prison, having regard to the previous record, social habits, physical condition, educational attainments, aptitudes, and suitable training for future employment, of individual prisoners.
A grades and merit system for reformable prisoners, modelled on the system in use in England, should be established.
Let us ask ourselves, as we pause for a moment after looking at these recommendations, how far have we gone in even scratching the surface and making headway in this regard?
What does the Archambault Commission have to say about education? Since this report was published I think all hon. Members will admit that we have made some progress in this field, but it is such little progress that we should all be ashamed of it. It was recommended that:
A complete reorganization of the educational system should be made in accordance with the recommendations contained in chapter VIII of this report, with special consideration for the young offenders, more frequent library privileges, and a simplified system of book distribution.
Then further recommendations were made regarding prison employment, and far reaching recommendations were made regarding amendments to the Criminal Code, rehabilitation and reports to sentencing judges.
June 18, 1965

Couple these recommendations, Mr. Speaker, with the general consideration I touched upon in my opening remarks, namely the fact that it is patently obvious in Canada today that there is a great lack of social welfare courts, social welfare judges, probation and parole officers. There is a great lack of the machinery needed to tackle the deep problems of juvenile deliquency. This we all know. We all know also about the major recommendations not of the Fauteux report but of the report to which I have referred, which recommendations are almost 30 years old. However, I support the setting up of this committee because I think it can deal usefully with some of the modern concepts which have come to light during the last 5, 10 or 15 years.
However, let this parliamentary committee not be an excuse for delaying action on the recommendations, not of the Fauteux report but of the Archambault report, one of the greatest royal commission reports in the history of this nation. If we do, Mr. Speaker, once more the Canadian public will have ample reason to become increasingly cynical about royal commissions and parliamentary committees. Because while the committee should and can do useful work, I hope I pointed out that what is really needed is action now, not tomorrow. We have no excuse for putting off action in these major areas of social and penal reform. Let us not kid ourselves about that, Mr. Speaker.
What is involved here is not a small amount of money. Millions and millions of dollars are involved. I can assure hon. gentlemen opposite, and I think I speak for Members in all corners of the House, that if they move forward in a real and dynamic way with the major recommendations of the Archambault report they will have the wholehearted support of Members in all corners of the House.
Some members of the Canadian public have the archaic idea that offenders should be thrown into old fashioned prisons and should stay there. On humanitarian and religious grounds alone this is not a very nice thing to say; but surely by talking about the rehabilitation of prisoners and the protection of society, and by the figures and statistics relating to recidivism, we have already shown that the system we have employed with such bad results for a number of decades has not worked at all. This is one instance where those of us who cry out, I think responsibly, for more reform should be listened to. I can assure the Government that if they move forward in this regard they will have our support.

Joint Committee on Penitentiaries
Again I say I am sure this committee will receive widespread support in the House of Commons as it gets down to work on some of the developments which have taken place in later years. But let us all get together and move forward now in areas of reform which for too long have been neglected.
[DOT] (1:00 p.m.)


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, the notice of motion of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau) is most important, because it concerns the setting up of a joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons to examine the question of penitentiaries coming under the jurisdiction of the Canadian government.
In 1946, when I was a young member-it does not mean that I am an old member now -in 1946, some members of the opposition and even some members of Mr. Mackenzie King's government spoke about setting up a committee to consider the situation of penitentiaries under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Parliament.
Then came the St. Laurent government, followed by the Conservative government, the Tory government, and every time, every year, every session, notices of motions were introduced to establish a committee to consider the penitentiary situation. We have been planning to consider this matter for 20 or 25 years and no solution has ever been found to settle this problem.
However, some people are considering the matter. We know that the situation existing in penitentiaries is being considered. Studies have already been made by experts in this field who concluded, as mentioned earlier by the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey), that penitentiaries must be reformed in order to permit the rehabilitation of prisoners and convicts.
Penitentiaries could be greatly improved, made fit for occupation, or even more appealing, so that prisoners may be treated as human beings and not as animals.
We could, for instance, organize penitentiaries in such a way as to enable convicts to do some productive and useful work and it would be less costly for the government and the Canadian taxpayers to keep them in prison. Thus trade schools could be set up in penitentiaries to enable prisoners to learn a trade so that they would contribute to their rehabilitation after their release. But nothing is done in that regard.
June 18. 1965

Joint Committee on Penitentiaries
Since prisoners are also human beings, we could also provide penitentiaries with recreation halls, swimming pools, theatres, etc. to help inmates get good training and learn how to live decently in a normal world.
Earlier I heard a member of the N.D.P. say there was a law for the rich and a law for the poor. A great many things need to be reformed in addition to the penitentiaries to allow the rehabilitation of young people.
Not very long ago I had to do with two prisoners who were not convicts but two young men of 19 and 20 caught red-handed in a most reprehensible act. They were arrested in September 1964 and brought before the court, which decided to send them for trial. On account of the law's delays and its lack of organization, the trials may take place in October 1965 or in the spring of 1966. In the meantime, these two young men are in the Ville-Marie jail in Temiscamingue county. Bail has been set at $10,000, but the two men remain in jail because such an amount is not to be found on every doorstep. Those two young men have been jailed without trial; they are still waiting to appear in court because of the slowness of the judicial process in the province of Quebec.
Reforms are needed. There is a young man of 20 kept in jail pending his trial and from whom much too high a bail is requested. Because his parents cannot afford to put up bail, the young man stays in jail for a year, a year and a half, without having been sentenced to jail. And some think that the young man is thus being helped toward rehabilitation in society.
It is a flagrant abuse to treat 20-year olds that way, if we want to rehabilitate them; but if we could not care less, that is a different story; let us continue drifting in the same direction.
There is a great number of young men like those in the country. Once in jail, they are bored to death because practically nothing is organized to take care of them. They are left idle. If there was something for them to do in jail, I think that would greatly help them toward rehabilitation.
It is strange to see to what extent society is concerned about these people when, for instance, we read in the newspapers every day that a murder has been committed here or there, that hooded bandits have struck here or there, that gangsters are operating here or there, just to create sensation. But, when will the newspapers come up with a solution to make the rehabilitation of those young people easier? Wrongdoings are being 
emphasized but rehabilitation per se is not mentioned.
To a certain extent I blame the newspapers for making so much out of those things, of those murders here and there, of all those infractions, without ever coming up with a constructive answer. Circulation is the sole concern of some newspapers: to collect 7 cents or 10 cents per issue. Our young people are sacrificed in the name of all that publicity given to depravity.
It is time for the government to put an end to its motions for setting up fact-finding committees. The situation has been studied, considered and as the member for Brome-Missisquoi pointed out a while ago, the time has come to take action, to reorganize those penitentiaries, to revise our methods of rehabilitation with regard to our young Canadian prisoners or delinquents. They may be a bad lot, but still there is a little good in each and everyone of them. It is a matter of finding it and helping them toward rehabilitation, toward confidence in themselves. This confidence they can feel only when society makes it possible for them to do so. When that day comes our penal institutions will work constructively, enabling human beings to become once more honourable and reasonable.
We therefore express the wish that the government take action instead of being content with setting up fact-finding committees. We have had enough of committees. Let us act now and give our Canadians that to which they are entitled.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to intervene in this debate, but before saying that which I wish to say I should like to associate myself with the excellent speeches that have been made by the hon. Member for Winnipeg North, the hon. Member for Brome-Missisquoi and the hon. Member for Villeneuve, who has just taken his seat. I think these were excellent speeches, and I should like to be associated with them.
[DOT] (1:10 p.m.)
The comment I should like to make, however, is that it seems to me the limited terms of reference contained in this resolution are in effect a reflection upon the Members of the House and the members of the other place. I cannot understand why, when this tremendously important subject of penitentiaries and penal reform is to be reviewed by a joint committee, the terms of reference should be
June 18, 1965

limited in the manner they are in this resolution. The resolution says that the subject matter referred to the joint committee is "to consider the state of penitentiaries .. .and the plans of the Government in relation thereto".
What is meant by "the state of penitentiaries"? To begin with, this is a phase which is virtually meaningless. I would assume that the "state of penitentiaries" meant a study of the buildings. Is it reasonable that Members of the House and the other place should form a committee and be asked to go into the sole matter of the buildings, and not into the far wider matters that are of great concern to the Members of this House?
As we well know, the Minister of Justice announced the terms of reference of a special committee on corrections, and in that connection the terms of reference include a study of the broad field of corrections in its widest sense from the initial investigation of an offence to the final discharge of a prisoner from imprisonment or on parole, including such subjects as arrest, bail, representation in court, conviction, probation, sentencing, training, medical and psychiatric attention, parole, pardon and so on. These are the broad, extensive and proper terms of reference that are given to this committee-a distinguished committee, it may be said, of people who are not Members of this House or of the other place.
But when it comes to asking Members of Parliament to look into this subject, the terms of reference are restricted to the state of penitentiaries. I do not suppose there is a single Member of the House who is not fully aware of the fact that the provision of buildings may be of importance, but it is of comparatively small importance compared with the wide number of matters referred to this outside committee.


Harold Edward Winch: There is the question of staff.


Francis Andrew Brewin: For example, as the hon. Member for Vancouver East points out, questions concerning staff were raised in the House a month ago. Of far greater importance than the objective presumably set out in the resolution is the objective of assisting in the reform and rehabilitation of those who get into trouble, limiting the number of those who become repeaters, and making our whole penal system efficient as well as just in its application to those who have fallen afoul of the law. Yet what do we have here? The House is being asked to set up a joint committee with members of the other 22620-1671


DE3ATES
[Stage Direction]
Joint Committee on Penitentiaries place, and the members of this committee are to spend their time looking into the question of buildings and not deal with these broader questions.
It seems to me this is the wrong approach. I am satisfied that in all parts of the House there are Members perfectly capable of receiving information from those who are experienced in this field and then making recommendations to the House for effective action. Reference has been made to the Archambault report. I know a little about the Archambault report because Mr. Justice McRuer, then J. C. McRuer, was my senior partner and he spent about a year and a half with Mr. Justice Archambault as a member of that commission. They travelled all over Canada and Europe and made what has been described as a monumental report. They took a lot of time out of the lives of very busy and very competent men. They produced an excellent report but, as the hon. Member for Brome-Missisquoi has told the House, many of the recommendations in that report have not been carried out yet. Why not? Because governments of the day were not ready to spend the money to do the things necessary to carry out the recommendations of that report. The same is true of the report of the royal commission headed by Mr. Justice Fauteux.
We do not need more outside commissions. It seems to me that if we are to get action on these things we need to solicit and arouse the support and the knowledge of Members of all parties in the House and in the other place so they will bring constant pressure to bear upon the Government to carry out some of these things that the experts suggest.
Is the report that eventually will be brought in by Mr. Justice Ouimet and his commission on these very same subjects to be pigeonholed like these other reports, and nothing done about it? I suggest that one of the ways to ensure that it cannot be pigeonholed is to have a committee of the House concerned with the broad range of this subject and determined, when these experts report, to see that what can be carried into legislation will be carried into legislation. It would be very much easier to do so if instead of Members making occasional speeches in the House, there was a continuing committee of those who over the years have qualified themselves particularly to deal with this subject.
Many other matters related to this question have come before the House from time to time. I myself brought in a resolution dealing
June 18, 1965
[Stage Direction]
Joint Committee on Penitentiaries with legal aid in criminal cases. It seems to me that is the sort of matter that should be dealt with by a committee of the House. We have recently amended our rules of procedure, I think very wisely, to create a larger number of standing committees to try to elicit from Members of the House, be they backbenchers or whoever they may be and no matter to what party they belong, a more continuing attention to the various subjects that face Parliament and the people of Canada.
I have no doubt that this resolution will be passed because we are all in favour of it, but even at this late stage I would urge the Government to give serious consideration to enlarging the terms of reference of this committee so that all these vitally important matters may be looked into. I say "vitally important" not in terms of dollars and cents, although even in those terms our system is obviously wasteful and inadequate, but in terms of human lives that can be aided and assisted.
I think the machinery of the committee that will be created by this resolution ought to be used not just to inquire into something called "the state of penitentiaries", whatever that may be-I have not heard any representative of the Government explain what this drafting means-but to inquire into the same sort of broad field which has been included in the terms of reference of this other expert committee. That expert committee will only sit for the time being. No doubt it will make a particular report on some of the things that come before it. But I say it is the Members of the House of all parties who have a responsibility in this field, and I hope the Parliamentary Secretary and the Solicitor General will convey to the Government and the others concerned our view that the terms of reference here are unduly narrow and restrict the opportunities of those who will be members of this committee to make the real contribution of which they are capable in this field.
Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that the Minister himself is not in the House, although I agree he cannot be here all the time. I think the establishment of this committee is very important, and in my opinion the Minister should be prepared to justify why a committee of Members of the House and of the other place is being established to give some direction with regard to the buildings and physical requirements of the penitentiaries
[Mr. Brewin.l
service. I suggest that probably the reason for the establishment of the committee is that a number of us had an opportunity to visit some of the prisons, and the reports we gave indicated a complete lack of modernization as well as conditions that would not be supported by the general public.
[DOT] (1:20 p.m.)
I am not sure, Mr. Speaker, whether this committee will serve any purpose. I am inclined to believe it will not if it is going to concern itself only with the building of penitentiaries. I believe the parliamentary committee will not be able to make any recommendations that will have any results for many years in the field of penitentiary construction. It is safe to say that the penitentiaries branch is much farther ahead in this field than Members of Parliament or the general public. The prisons we are building now, particularly in the third category, the minimum security category, are model type prisons. I believe also that the medium security institutions are not bad institutions in relation to the design and construction advocated by those who have been interested in penology for a long time.
I believe there is considerable difference of opinion in so far as maximum security institutions are concerned. It is in these institutions that the difficulty arises because, in many cases, men are confined to them for long periods of time. The abuses which took place, and which I presume led to the establishment of this committee, occurred in maximum security institutions. No one who is qualified to discuss this subject would disagree with the statements made by various people who have visited maximum security institutions, pointing out that they were a disgrace and something must be done.
One thing I find difficult to understand is that when we build new institutions, particularly of the maximum security variety, we do not place them in areas conducive to the work of rehabilitation. I believe it is generally agreed by all those interested in this subject that maximum security penitentiaries must be close to psychiatrists, psychoanalysts and others who work in that field. When a person is sent to a pen-tentiary it is not like sending him to take a course or putting him on a farm to enable him to become rehabilitated as part of society. I believe those concerned with maximum security institutions have to keep this in mind.
June 18, 1965

Joint Committee on Penitentiaries
There is another committee that has been set up, and I think it is a very worth-while committee. I am in agreement with those who say that we in Parliament should not try to satisfy the public outcry that has occurred in recent months merely by establishing another committee. I agree that the Fauteux commission did a very good job, as did the Archambault commission when they investigated the whole penal system. They made recommendations that are probably as modern in terms of penal systems as any in the world today. They are still valid. However, the Government has done nothing about them.
This fact raises the matter of public apathy. I hope some other Members of Parliament have listened, as I have, in the last two days to a radio program in Ottawa called "The Open Line". This program has been discussing the problem of conjugal visits to penitentiaries. I raised this question in Parliament a number of years ago, and it resulted finally in a very good article in Chatelaine magazine. I was pleased that it should be given coverage in that type of magazine, because I feel it is a problem in which women are vitally interested and which affects women perhaps more than men, although women form a small percentage of our prison population.
I was interested in the discussion that arose from the Chatelaine article and which followed my introduction of the subject in Parliament, at which time I was hooted and told I was irresponsible. I have been interested in this radio program which during the last two or three days has been discussing the matter of conjugal visits, because it affects the whole penal reform system in Canada. I have been shocked and disgusted by the attitude of the Canadian people as indicated by this program. Many of them have said "Let us punish the prisoners. We did not send them there for a picnic; we sent them there to be punished". Why do these people not tell the Government that what they want to do is reinstate the beatings and the rat-infested prisons which we have tried to eliminate. These goody-goody people who have been on this program have talked about the Bible in terms of an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth; you steal a loaf of bread and you are put in prison for years.
I am shocked and ashamed of the people in Ottawa who have that attitude. These people have a right to adopt whatever attitude they wish, but I am shocked and ashamed of
them. All the reading I have done about prison reform indicates that even a backward country like Mexico goes much further than I would go. I believe that while we should rehabilitate the people in prison, we should not necessarily pamper them. I believe that advancement toward rehabilitation should be a reward, and that these visits of the family to the prison should be a reward.
The Mexican Government are more farsighted than we are because they view this as a right, not a reward. You do not give this as a reward for good behaviour; every prisoner, no matter how bad or what his crime or what his present condition or present attitude toward reform may be, is entitled to the same consideration. They even bring in prostitutes for the single people. They bring in girl friends if the girl friends want to go into the prison to visit their boy friends. They really repeat, on a limited scale, the type of relationship a person has outside, no matter what that relationship may be. I was interested in one of the questions which the radio announcer put yesterday to the woman who said you certainly could not bring prostitutes into a jail. He asked her whether she was aware of the homosexual problem in the jails and the lady said, yes, of course she was aware of it. He then asked whether, if her son were in jail, and if bringing in prostitutes would prevent her son being involved in a homosexual relationship, she would agree to such a course. She said: "If it was my son, I would certainly agree." I suggest that if it is good in an individual case the principle is good enough to deserve some consideration. [DOT] (1:30 p.m.)
I do not wish to leave the impression that I or those responsible for the operation of our penal institutions would go this far. I think we are a very backward nation, socially, and I do not think we are prepared to take this step. Most of us in this chamber are probably as backward as the average man or woman, and would not support it. The countries which have taken action of this kind have done so without much detriment to themselves or to the institutions, as far as I can find out. I would have expected nothing different.
I am pleased the officials of our own penitentiary branch have begun letting prisoners go home for two or three days. Recently this has been accepted by regulations and the Commissioner can now allow people to go home for as long as 15 days. The warden can grant leave of absence up to three days. These privileges have been granted for funerals and
June 18, 1965

Joint Committee on Penitentiaries recently they have been extended. I am still old fashioned enough to think we should use a system of this type as a reward to prisoners for accepting some of the benefits of rehabilitation.
I do not want to deal particularly today with the problem of homosexuals or the provision of facilities for conjugal relations in a prison cottage area. But I am sure anyone who is in his right mind would agree there is an advantage in extending privileges to prisoners while they are still under some degree of control by the institution. I can remember, when I was visiting St. Vincent de Paul talking to a young fellow who told me: I am not going to get into any trouble here, nor do I want to go out on parole or anything of that kind, because they have to release me in three months and as soon as I get out I am going to kill three people. I do not want anything to interfere with that plan.


Mr. Woolliams:: Did you report that threat to the Department of Justice?


William Arnold Peters: The Deputy Warden was there and heard what was said to me. There was nothing unusual about that statement. I believe he would have told the Warden-the man I think he was going to murder after he got out. I was particularly interested in not knowing. But after this man served his full sentence he would be set at complete liberty without the necessity for supervision or for working in co-operation with probation or classification officers. He need have nothing to do with them.
I think Members of Parliament should be concerned about these matters. On the other hand, I think the proposed Committee will be a waste of time if it is only going to design buildings and engage itself in architectural shenanigans in a field its Members know nothing about. It would be safe for me to say, for example, that we should double the size of the cells and instal better conveniences. As for the design of penitentiaries, that is another matter. I do not think the Committee will go to the trouble of finding out a great deal about systems other than those in use in North America. Maybe the Committee will go out to Saskatchewan where some architects have taken the drug LSD to help them design a mental institution-they took this hallucination producing drug so that they could put themselves in the position of the inmates and find out exactly what the inmates might prefer, and what would be most


conducive to their rehabilitation. If they were to do that, I think the committee would be "nuts". There is a better way of doing it and possibly we should allow the architects to continue to deal with these matters.


An hon. Member:: Does the hon. Member think we need take any drugs?


William Arnold Peters: I am sure that Members of Parliament do not tend toward hallucinations, but they have other disadvantages. We are pretty backward in looking forward in terms of penal reform. The Minister himself has indicated that this is the case. In talcing this attitude we are probably doing no more than reflect the views of the public generally. When a matter affects them, it is one thing; when it affects someone else, it is something quite different.
I was interested in the similarity between two statements made on the radio program yesterday, one by a prisoner who had been in an institution for six years and another by a guard who had been a guard in a Federal penitentiary for a number of years. Each of these men adopted the archaic attitude that prisons must be tougher, that the food should be inferior and that conditions generally should be worse in order to assure the effectiveness of the deterrent. If this is the attitude of the public, obviously it will be very difficult to get anything done in the way of reforms. But I think Members of Parliament have an obligation to be more far-sighted than the public generally, and offer leadership in these fields. I do not believe the Government is giving any particular leadership, but I appreciate this fact: The more one gets to know the people in the Penitentiaries Branch the more credit must go, I think, to a Government of long ago which in a subtle way must have taken some of the expressions found in the reports of these various commissions and committees and applied them through the personnel in the Penitentiaries Branch. If Members of Parliament really knew some of the things which are going on in the penitentiaries they would be shocked, because I do not think they would be prepared to go as far as some of the officials have gone. I think these men should be congratulated on taking the chances they have taken in putting into effect measures of penal reform with which, I am sure, some Members of Parliament would not agree.
Another of the radio discussions concerned the birth of a child to a woman who had visited her husband in one of the penitentiaries. The public was concerned about this,
June 18. 1965

but its concern appeared to centre on who should be responsible for the support of the infant. Should it be supported by the province, which has responsibility for the maintenance of the family while the husband was in jail, or should it be the responsibility of the Federal Government because the Federal prison authorities had somehow turned their backs during the woman's visit? Surprisingly enough the public did not know that the Federal Government was in any case paying 80 per cent of the cost of caring for that family and for the child, no matter which authority might have to make the particular welfare arrangements. So the question of which authority would assume responsibility was largely hypo-, thetical. This program has thrown a good deal of light on public opinion, a factor which is often difficult to ascertain.
[DOT] (1:40 p.m.)
I think the Government should now give consideration to some of the things they have learned in this way. Perhaps it should sample public opinion in some way. If they did this, they would realize the crying need for this committee to have much broader grounds so that Members themselves would get some insight of our whole penal system and its operation. Then Members would have more knowledge of the operation of penal reform. They would be able to examine the results of some of the experiments that have already taken place in the federal penitentiaries system and the experiments that have taken place in countries more enlightened than ours. They would then have the opportunity and responsibility of building up public opinion to accept the changes that the Government is willing to accept and implement as soon as the people are willing to accept them.
This may not happen, Mr. Speaker. This Government is without doubt the most conservative, with a small "C", Government that I have seen for a long time. They want to establish a committee to do these things and they have taken the matter out of Parliament, so that Members of Parliament will only know the results when the report is brought in a number of years from now. I believe the Government has a responsibility to allow Members of Parliament to gain the knowledge that can be obtained from this committee. Members of Parliament would then have a responsibility to help develop public opinion. It is really not good enough to be willing, through the back door, to establish by regulation some of these things.

Joint Committee on Penitentiaries It is important that the public know what they are and are enlightened enough to demand the rehabilitation of prisoners.
I say this, Mr. Speaker, because it is a fact that if the prisoner returning to his community is not accepted by that community and cannot fit into the community again, he is not rehabilitated, no matter what has been done for him in a penitentiary in terms of readjusting his social and psychological outlook in order to solve the problem that put him into the penitentiary in the first place. You may correct this in the penitentiary; you may find that the classification officers indicate that rehabilitation is possible-but if you put this man into a community that will not allow rehabilitation, you really have not accomplished anything at all. I think the Government is being very narrow-minded and they are certainly very conservative in not allowing Members of Parliament to obtain a better insight of our whole penal reform system.
We should also talk about the guards. For many years we had, without doubt, the same type of guards in our institutions as we have had prisoners. You could change the uniform and put the prisoner inside and the guard outside, and as long as he could beat the prisoner or the prisoner could beat him it would not make much difference which one was inside the uniform. Keep the gates shut and keep the whole shooting match inside. One person went there voluntarily and the other was put there, but otherwise there isn't much difference between them. In recent years this has completely changed. This type of guard has not completely disappeared, but my experience is that we have a completely different type of guard today and we also have a completely different type of prisoner in many cases. They have become much smarter. I could name several prisoners who were considered to be almost uneducated but who were not uneducated at all. I am thinking of John Darrell Peters, or whatever his name is, who handled his case with great success all across this nation. His case has been in most of the Provinces; he has appealed and presented a highly documented legal case.


An hon. Member:: Is he any relation?


William Arnold Peters: He is no relative of mine. I only learned of his case through the publicity we have received in this House on a number of occasions. I should also point out that I do not think he is a relative of the Liberal organizer who became notorious for bringing
June 18. 1965

Joint Committee on Penitentiaries his friends over from Scotland a few years ago. I only use him as an example. I think the guards have become smarter and the prisoners have become better educated because of the facilities which have been provided in our prisons.
I think the public should be aware of the other problems in this field. The hon. Member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) mentioned something that has always shocked me. I refer to the difference in sentences and the political orientation of the judge rather than a legal orientation. I might say that I have also had experience in court, but not on the same side of the fence as my learned friend from Greenwood. I have heard a magistrate say some of the things that the hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) mentioned. I can remember a magistrate standing up when he had to dismiss a charge against me and saying that there was no evidence to warrant a conviction or to justify the case going any further, but the work that I had been engaged in for the previous two months was, I think it was something like "nefarious and a disgrace to the nation". He used many other adjectives of that nature. I personally didn't think it was so bad; I had been a candidate for the C.C.F. at that time and was defeated two days before the trial by something like 500 votes. I had also been for some time a leader for the Steelworkers in a strike against the mining companies. I didn't think that was too bad, either. Personally, Mr. Speaker, I did not refer to the fact that the magistrate was secretary-treasurer of the mine that was having all the difficulty and really was not too impartial in any way, shape or form, as far as the whole mess was concerned.
Therefore I agree that justice should be dispensed equally and should be impartial and non-political. I have had quite a number of instances brought to my attention of persons being convicted who, if they had had any kind of lawyer to defend themselves, might have got off. These people have received very severe sentences simply because they were not defended. I remember the statement made by my hon. friend from Danforth (Mr. Scott), who said that there is nothing in the whole penal reform system or in the whole judicial system that can protect a person against a bad lawyer. This is perhaps a fairly strong statement, but I believe it is also fairly accurate. Often people involved in very serious crimes have to accept a young lawyer who knows absolutely nothing about the type of law he is

going to be presenting and has had absolutely no experience in that type of legal work. He may have articled with a legal firm doing a completely different type of work than that involved in the defence he has to put forward for some young criminal.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: It is worse if they have an old lawyer who looks as though he might know something. That is more dangerous.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, could I ask the hon. Member a question? Is he going to support or oppose the setting up of this parliamentary committee?
[DOT] (1:50 p.m.)


William Arnold Peters: Frankly, Mr. Speaker, I do not think it matters whether it is set up or not. I am not really much in favour of it. I am not opposed to it, if Members of Parliament can learn anything by discussing the blueprints for new prisons and their locations. I would like to ask the hon. Member who has asked the question not to forget what happened when politicians became involved in the new jail that was going to be built in Cornwall. This would probably highlight the situation as far as politicians are concerned and we would lose all the advantages expected from new penitentiaries. But this is only a vehicle to enable us to talk about some matters of penal reform which in my opinion would not even be considered by the committee.


Harold Edward Winch: Would the hon. Member permit another question. Can I ask the hon. Member for Timiskaming, who sits right behind me, whether he did not learn a lot about our penitentiaries system when as a Member of the House of Commons he visited penitentiaries and saw the conditions in them. Did he not think that if more Members visited these institutions and became interested in recidivism it might be of some value in making recommendations in regard to the subject of penology?


William Arnold Peters: Yes; but I would also qualify my answer to the extent of saying that I also learned a lot more when I went around a penitentiary on my own than I did on two conducted tours. The only reason I learned very much about the penitentiary was because I consulted an inmate and he told me where I should go. The same is not true of a conducted tour, such as the one some hon. Members were taken on, a short while after my visit. In fact, the highlight of this tour was the statement made after the tour by the Minister.
June 18, 1965	COMMONS


Stanley Howard Knowles: If you spent a period there you would learn even more.


William Arnold Peters: Someone says you should spend some time in the pen to learn about it, but I have never found it that hospitable an institution to spend more than a day or two there. Personally, I think it would be pretty unnerving, even if you were a newspaperman, or as a Member of Parliament, to listen to all the noises at night in these institutions after the lights are turned off.
My real appeal to the Government is that they reconsider the limits they have placed on the terms of reference of the Committee and to broaden them. Matters such as parole, remissions, bail, supply of legal counsel, that very large and not well known field of the care of youthful offenders and their segregation in the whole judicial process from the time they are arrested until the time they are rehabilitated, the homosexual problem, permitting visits by wives of inmates, should in my opinion be brought before the committee so that immediate attention may be given to them.
I do not see why the Government should be scared of suggestions made by Members of Parliament on the basis of evidence available to them from former reports and the day to day operation of the new Committee which has been set up, unless, of course, the Government is of the opinion that the public is not ready to have the spotlight of public attention directed at these problems. If the Government, through this Committee, had a national program similar to the open line broadcasts over the radio, then in my opinion they would not find it nearly so hard to convince the public that changes do need to be made, rather than keep these matters in the dark.
I would see a Parliamentary Committee consisting of Members of Parliament and Members of the Senate turning the spotlight of public attention on problems which we think should be solved. If we only send Members of Parliament to prisons in order to examine them, each Member of Parliament will come back with an armful of smuggled literature and letters. And if they declare that they will return to the prison later, the supply of this material will increase tenfold. This will put a Member of Parliament into the position of judge and jury, causing him to make a number of decisions which I do not think he is capable of making.


Harold Edward Winch: That is not true.


William Arnold Peters: My hon. friend says that it is not true. I suggest that for the last 20 years
DEBATES	2623
Joint Committee on Penitentiaries or more he has been making such decisions and has become probably the best known friend of prisoners from coast to coast. In my opinion, this course of action has taken up a lot of his time and effort and on many occasions has brought him a lot of grief and heart searching. This has been to his credit, but I am sure it is something which most hon. members would not wish to take on.
In closing I would ask the Government to give consideration to withdrawing this resolution and substituting one in much wider terms which will enable the Committee to look into the whole matter of penal reform. I should like to see a Committee set up to go into this whole question, be prepared to sit between sessions, to visit institutions in other parts of the country, to have meetings with the John Howard Society, the Elizabeth Fry Society, with universities connected with penitentiaries, with people connected with psychiatry, psychoanalysis, psychologists, sociologists, the judiciary, legal branches, Bar Associations, and so on. This committee would have the advantage of visiting these organizations and its Members would have a rounded out attitude toward what to do with any prisoner from the time he is arrested till the time he re-enters society.
It is my opinion that the average Canadian, if he is made aware of the problems in our penitentiaries, will be interested in the process of rehabilitation which must be the aim of our penitentiaries system. If we only lock people up and give expression to the belief of what I hope is a very limited number of people who consider penal institutions merely as a method of punishment, namely an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, and we are not able to convince the Canadian people that there is much more to the problem than this, then we have failed, and failed miserably.
If the Government broaden this Committee's terms of reference they will find great cooperation from Members on both sides of the House toward establishing the rehabilitation of those who have been guilty of offences. It is not good enough to say that those who are rich will receive consideration; those who are poor should also receive justice.
In closing I should like to refer to a letter I received yesterday which has caused me and a lot of other people with whom I have raised the matter a great deal of concern. It is in connection with the Nicholas case, a matter which I raised some time ago. Young Nicholas is quite happy with the fact that the Solicitor
2624	COMMONS
Joint Committee on Penitentiaries General has, by decree or whatever it is, reduced by hall the sentence which was imposed on him. A representative ol the John Howard Society went to see him a few weeks ago.
[DOT] (2:00 p.m.)
This is a man who, following a riot at St. Vincent de Paul, was almost beaten to death by the guards. When I saw him last he was in a highly nervous state. His mental state was such that he was not even allowed to go out on his own. When he described his experiences he tore oil his shirt and threw himself on the floor as though he was experiencing the beating again.
That man has since been transferred to Kingston, he has gained 40 pounds in weight and his mental attitude has completely changed. If you mention the subject of parole to him he invariably asks how he can be paroled when he is innocent of the crime for which he was sentenced.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Tardif):: Order, please. I regret to inform the hon. gentleman that his time has expired.


Mr. Steven Otto (York East):: Mr. Speaker,
I did not intend to take part in this debate, but as a practising lawyer, like others, I could not help being moved by the speech of the hon. Member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin). The consideration and study of penitentiaries as they now exist is one thing which should be considered by a committee, but another committee should consider the whole question of penal reform. I have no doubt that the proposed Committee will consider plans for penitentiary buildings, and the present condition of penitentiaries, and will arrive at some conclusions as to what should be done. I think the hearings of this committee will provide an opportunity for members of the Civil Service in positions of administration to present their views and ideas in respect of improving our correctional system. The opinions of those people are valuable.
The proposed Committee will have the power to travel to see at first hand the conditions of our penitentiaries. I suggest that they should first travel throughout the municipalities and consider such things as day nurseries, the amount of money spent on day nurseries, and the number of working mothers which take advantage of such facilities, and relate that information to the incidence of crime. We should not close our eyes to the number of working mothers who

DEBATES	June 18, 1965
put their children in these day nurseries. This Committee should also consider Juvenile Courts in the various municipalities to determine how efficient they are and how qualified are their staffs. The committee should also go to the various schools in the municipalities and find out how many psychiatrists are assigned to assist in solving the problems of many of these school children. It is my understanding that one psychiatrist is available for about every 10,000 pupils. There is a tremendous shortage of psychiatrists in this field. This Committee should go to the law societies to find out how many lawyers, particularly younger ones, are interested in the problems of children and devote their time to these problems. Most lawyers are concerned about making money, and direct their talents toward corporation law because of the tremendous amount of money that can be made in that field.
This committee has the power to travel to these places and to carry out this kind of investigation, but whether or not they will do so is another question. I personally feel that they should make the kind of investigation I have suggested, rather than just a study of the bricks and mortar, so to speak. If they carry out that kind of investigation, I am sure they will truly understand the reasons behind the state of our penitentiaries and will find solutions to these problems.


Mr. Terry Nugent (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that I was unable to attend to hear the speech of the hon. Member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin), as well as one or two others, but I did listen to several speeches made earlier which I felt were not relevant to the resolution before us. For instance, the speech made by the hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orli-kow), while it was very interesting and revealed one or two weaknesses in respect of the administration of justice in this nation, had nothing to do with the state of penitentiaries or the plans of the Government in relation to them as disclosed by the resolution now before us.
I enjoyed the speech of the hon. Member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey) and I thought his points were very relevant, particularly when he suggested that the Government instead of appointing a new committee to carry out an investigation should implement some of the recommendations that have already been made. That is a suggestion that this House should seriously consider. There is no encouragement to Members of a com-
June 18, 1965	COMMONS
mittee, such as is proposed, in contemplation of the action that has not been taken by successive Governments in respect of the very excellent advice and recommendations that have been presented by various Commissions which have studied this whole question.
It seems there is always some reluctance on the part of Governments to push through penal reform in the face of public feeling that criminals are being mollycoddled. That feeling has been expressed in newspapers from time to time by responsible citizens and taxpayers. We have often heard the question asked, why is there this great concern for criminals; and I think that we as legislators have not pressed home the point often enough that we are not trying to make things easy for criminals, but trying to improve our correctional system so that prisoners who are released will not be convicted a second, third or fourth time and returned to the penitentiary. We should impress upon the public that in the long run money spent to modernize correctional institutions represents an investment that will save the taxpayers a great deal of money. We should sell that idea to the taxpayers of this country.
The statistics presented by the hon. Member for Brome-Missisquoi clearly show that we have stalled long enough in our approach to this problem. Those statistics indicate that from 40 per cent to 70 per cent of all individuals sentenced to penitentiaries return a second, third or fourth time. If we want to protect the public and save the taxpayers' money, then we should adopt a correctional system which will reform prisoners so that following their release they become good citizens and do not again turn to crime. Surely that is the best protection that can be provided to the public. If that is not a good investment of public dollars, then I do not know what is, or how we could better spend the money on education.
Under the terms of this resolution this committee will be directed to consider only one aspect of the reformation of the administration of justice in this country. It is not directed to investigate the efficiency of our courts, how our provincial jails are run, whether there should be legal aid, and many other facets of this whole picture. I presume the Senators and M.P.s who are appointed to this committee will look at the physical buildings and facilities of our penitentiaries and study them from every point of view, including their capacity, their comforts or lack
DEBATES	2625
Joint Committee on Penitentiaries thereof, their security measures and how effective they are, the state of health generally of the prisoners, how crowded the penitentiaries are, the efficiency of the staffs, the aims of the wardens, and all those things which are associated with correctional reform of those individuals who are incarcerated. We must consider all those things which are designed to make sure that these prisoners can be returned to society as useful citizens. It is the inspection of the facilities which will be of concern to the Members of this proposed committee, and it is only that narrow aspect of the administration of justice with which we are concerned today under the terms of this resolution.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)
The idea of a Joint Committee of Senators and M.P.s to study this question has much to commend it. We know there are several Members of that other place who have a tremendous amount of legal experience. Some of the members of the other place, not because of their age but because of their experience, are in my opinion very well qualified to assist Members of this House in a survey of this kind, and they have the time to do so.
The provision that 15 Members of this House will be on the Committee gives us a pretty broad selection. I doubt that there are 15 Members of this House who have a great deal of experience in this field and really know much about penitentiaries and the criminal mind, but I am sure that with proper selection from the Senate, and with care taken in this House to select those people who are most interested in the topic, much valuable advice can be given to the Government in a relatively short time, provided the Committee takes the trouble to go and examine one or two penitentiaries very carefully. I think the Committee should do just that.
I think I need do no more than repeat the admonition of the hon. Member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey), who pointed out that many independent recommendations have already been made to the Government on which no action has been taken. The making of a careful study and the gathering of valuable information will do no one any good and accomplish nothing unless action is taken, and it rather seems to me that the appointment of this Committee is another way of begging the question. The Government is afraid to take any action, so it puts up a smokescreen. If the resolution is carried and
June 18, 1965

Joint Committee on Penitentiaries the Committee is established, I submit there will be an obligation on the part of the Government to take action on the Committee's recommendations within a year at most after it reports. I have been a member of too many committees in the last three or four years which have made recommendations to the Government about which nothing has been done. I hope that will not occur in this case, and that the Committee will be able to meet, make a survey of a few penitentiaries and report soon so that quick action can be taken.


Mr. G. C. Lachance (Lafontaine):: Mr. Speaker, since the government has decided to present this motion to set up a joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons in order to consider the situation of penitentiaries under the jurisdiction of the federal government, I shall take a few minutes of the house's time to put a few remarks on record, particularly concerning the rehabilitation of prisoners after they leave the penitentiaries.
Like many others, I have noticed and deplored the fact that those who have served time in our penitentiaries are shut out from the federal, provincial and even municipal civil service.
What organization is in a better position to facilitate the complete rehabilitation of those who have served a few years in our penitentiaries? If the federal, provincial and municipal governments do not set an example in this field by accepting in the public service people who came out of penitentiaries, I wonder who will.
The time is past when such people were to be set aside because, in most cases, they did not intend to repeat their mistakes. They all deserve government help. Private concerns are not in a position to do that; neither are agencies, regardless of their good will, in the best position to co-operate in the rehabilitation of those people and in finding work for them so that they may continue to live as human beings. We have seen too many cases of people who have returned to crime simply because they did not find, in civilian life, any opportunity to work and earn an honourable living.
These are the remarks I wanted to put on the record. In that respect, I wanted to introduce a motion for debate. But when I noticed that the government had decided to submit this motion to the house, I felt I should make these few remarks; I also hope to have the opportunity of discussing the matter further

in committee. Besides, I intend to work on this personally and do my utmost to arouse interest, so that our governments might offer work to those who leave our penitentiaries after having served their time. Above all, I should like to see the Civil Service Commission and the government take the necessary means to ensure that these people can take courses while in prison, thus enabling them to prepare themselves for Civil Service exams.
I can see no problem here, and I know full well we can then feel, in conscience, that we have accomplished our duty with regard to the rehabilitation of these people.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Minister of Fisheries) moved: that the House go into Committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act to increase the maximum loan amount to a fisherman from $4,000 to $10,000 and to increase the maximum repayment period from eight years to ten years and also to extend the period during which guaranteed loans may be made for a period of five years from June 30, 1965, to June 30, 1970.
Motion agreed to and the House went into Committee, Mr. Lamoureux in the Chair.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Chairman, this resolution concerns proposed amendments to the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act which will extend the period during which guaranteed loans may be made to June 30, 1970, raise from $4,000 to $10,000 the maximum guaranteed loan amount which a fisherman may have outstanding, and increase from eight to ten years the maximum period over which loan under this Act may be repaid.
The purpose of the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act is to make bank and credit union loans more readily available to fishermen to help them finance a broad range of investment projects including the purchase, construction or improvement of fishing vessels, fishing equipment and shore installations. To this end, the Act authorizes the Minister of Finance to guarantee each lending institution
June 18, 1965

against loss up to 15 per cent of loans made aggregating $500,000. A guarantee of up to 10 per cent of total loans made is applicable in respect of loans made by that lender in excess of $500,000. There is an over-all limit on the total amount of guaranteed loans which may be made by all lending institutions, and this has been set at $20 million.
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)
As the Act stands at present, the maximum loan amount is $4,000 and the maximum repayment period is eight years.
This legislation was enacted by Parliament in 1955 and was made initially effective for a period of three years. The period of operations during which guaranteed loans may be made was extended from time to time and this now expires on June 30, 1965.
The extent to which fishermen have made use of this credit facility has been fairly modest-I could add almost too modest to be really efficient-particularly when compared with the use that farmers have made of credit under the Farm Improvement Loans Act. Nevertheless, the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act has proven to be a valuable supplement to other loan sources available to fishermen and, in some fishing areas, there has recently been an indication of growth in the use that is made of this facility.
Since inception to March 31 last year, close to 1,400 loans totalling $1.9 million were made. The upturn in lending is indicated by the fact that while annual loans until the fiscal year 1962-63 were in the $200,000 range, this increased to about $370,000 in 1963-64, and preliminary figures indicate that this trend continued into the 1964-65 fiscal year, during which loans may have come close to one half million dollars. Although the annual report for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1965, is not available, in fact during the period April 1 to December 31, 1964, the total loans made amounted to $340,000. This trend has been possible in large measure because of general improvements in fishing operations. These improvements, along with a trend toward the use of more costly equipment, also make it desirable to increase the maximum loan amount that a fisherman may borrow under the Act.
I should mention also that there have been significant changes in the fishing industry since 1955. These changes are now going on at an accelerated pace, and the most important of these is the expanding size of the individual fishing enterprise. Fishing, like agriculture, is becoming more and more
Fisheries Improvement Loans Act a business operation. Fishermen today must increase the scale of their operations, use larger vessels and more elaborate fishing gear if the fishing industry is to maintain its competitive position with other food producers. Similarly, increased efficiency and higher returns to fishermen must prevail if the industry is to survive in competition with other employment opportunities. My department is encouraging these developments in many ways through broad programs of research and development of new methods, subsidies on vessel construction and so on.
The proposed amendments to this Act fit into the total picture. I fully realize, Mr. Chairman, that this Act, as amended, is not going to meet all the credit requirements of fishermen and the fishing industry. I should like to refer particularly to its application to the Province of Newfoundland. As the annual reports will show, a small number of fishermen in Newfoundland have been able to take advantage of these loans. This is due to the fact that in a large number of settlements or communities there are no chartered banks and the fishermen have had little contact with banking institutions. We are looking into the possibility of finding more practical means of assisting Newfoundland fishermen in so far as making loans available to them.
In so far as fishermen are concerned, particularly in the meeting of their credit needs for larger and modern vessels and improved gear, I am a firm supporter of the provision of such credit through provincial fishermen's loan boards. This would explain, to some extent, why such a limited number of fishermen take advantage of this Act. Personally, I had a good deal of experience with the New Brunswick Fishermen's Loan Board and I can assure the House that a lending agency, which is close to the fishermen and close to the developmental possibilities of the industry, has much to commend it. I know this same conclusion has been reached in all the Atlantic Provinces where such provincial agencies have operated for many years. I am hopeful other Provinces will seriously consider similar action. I must add that following some of the federal-provincial meetings which have taken place with the inland Provinces and British Columbia in recent months, there has been an increasing interest in those Provinces in the possibility of establishment of Fishermen's Loan Boards. I believe there is a real possibility that this Act, as amended,
June 18. 1965

Fisheries Improvement Loans Act can be made to tie in closely with the operations of Provincial Loan Boards. There may well be many cases where loan boards can direct the fishermen to finance or credit unions, and thus relieve themselves of the necessity of tying up their limited capital resources.
In so far as the fish processing industry is concerned, I believe that the new program announced by the Prime Minister on June 7, whereby a newly established firm or expanding existing firms in designated areas will receive assistance from the Department of Industry, will go a long way toward meeting the needs of the fish processing industry. In this connection I should mention also the useful role of private capital from both domestic and foreign sources. The fishing industry is now enjoying a strong market, both at home and abroad, and is generally in a healthy, expanding condition. Under these circumstances the credit needs tend to increase, but at the same time credit becomes more easily available.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, the proposed amendments are simple and direct. They will extend the period during which guaranteed loans may be made as well as increase the extent to which an individual fisherman can use this credit source. As a result, fishermen will have a more ample opportunity for borrowing, on reasonable terms and conditions, to meet their growing capital needs. This, together with other measures taken by the Government, by the Government in collaboration with the Provinces, and by the Provinces, will in a modest way further contribute to the improvement of efficiency and the expansion of a very important primary industry.
[DOT] (2:30 p.m.)


Mr. MacLean (Queens):: First, I wish to express to the Minister of Fisheries my appreciation for the concise and objective statement he has made on this matter. As he said, the Act which this bill will amend, introduced and passed in Parliament in 1955, was extended in 1959 for another three years, and amended at that time to expand the definition of those who could borrow under it; and it was again extended in 1962. This is another extension and I agree with the proposal that the Act should be extended for five years, this time, instead of for three. I think it is unnecessary that an Act of this sort should come up for review as frequently as every three years.
I am pleased, also, to note that the ceiling on loans is to be raised from $4,000 to

$10,000. This will not, in my judgment, bring about an increased use of this legislation in proportion to the increase in the ceiling, but it is a step in the right direction and it may cover a number of cases which were not covered by the Act previously. If for no other reason, the tremendous increase in the cost of fishing equipment since 1955 is sufficient justification for raising the ceiling to a considerable extent. As a matter of fact, I want to say at once that we in this party will support this amendment. We may have certain suggestions to offer as we go on, but we will support it.
As the Minister has told us-and this was my experience, too, as Minister of Fisheries -this Act has not been used by fishermen to the extent we had hoped. It was introduced as a companion piece of legislation to the Farm Improvement Loans Act. But in some areas at least fishermen have not used it to the extent that farmers have used the corresponding legislation. There are a number of reasons for this, of course. The obvious one is that fishing gear has to be insured because it may very well be lost. There is much less risk of this happening to farm implements. Then again, fishing equipment can wear out rapidly and a condition could develop whereby it would all have to be replaced at one time, whereas farmers can add to their equipment year by year.
However, this does not provide us with a full explanation why the Act has not been used as much as we had hoped. There must be other elements-inaccessibility of lending institutions, for example, or the question of getting into the habit of financing fishing operations by this means. In Prince Edward Island the legislation has been used proportionately a great deal more than in other provinces. The population of that Province is only about one half of 1 per cent of the total population of the country. Nevertheless, the fishermen of Prince Edward Island have taken out 35 per cent of the loans granted under this legislation for the whole country, and the volume of the loans taken out on the island is more than 25 per cent of the whole. Had commensurate use been made of the Act in the rest of the country, total loans would have been several times greater than has in fact been the case.
I suggest to the Minister that he continue to try to find ways of encouraging fishermen to use the benefits available under this Act to a greater extent. We are living in a very competitive age and it is good business for
June 18. 1965

fishermen, if they are in an economically sound situation, to make use of as much credit as they can. As long as their operation is efficient they can make it more efficient by equipping themselves to carry out their work properly.
I do not think there is anything else 1 wish to say, except that I am pleased to note the Minister holds the view that the provinces also have a large responsibility in this field. I notice that a contrary view was expressed by the Opposition critic on the last occasion this Act was amended. My view is in accord with that of the present Minister. Three years ago, when this Act was last considered, the Opposition critic of that day, now Minister of Transport, said as reported in Hansard of March 6, 1962 at page 1546:
I am sure the hon. Member for Royal, the Minister of Forestry, would agree with me when I say that the plain fact is that this is not something that ought to be left to provincial governments. Under the constitution fisheries are the exclusive responsibility of this parliament and the Federal Government. Surely if farm credit, when agriculture is a joint responsibility of Parliament and the legislatures, is largely assumed by Parliament, credit for fishermen should be the responsibility of this Parliament.
I do not agree with him and I hold the same view as the present Minister in this connection. I think his conclusion is based on sound reasoning and his experience in the Department.
I have nothing more to say at this moment. We may have some further remarks to make as representatives of this party, and there may be some comments by other hon. Members, but it is not our intention to prolong the debate at this stage.


Mr. Barnett:: Like the hon. Member for Queens, I usually find presentations made by the Minister of Fisheries disarming if one does not look beyond the content of the statements he makes in such a pleasant manner to the House. Unfortunately, all too often when the Minister of Fisheries presents a resolution of this kind, a relatively minor amendment to a relatively minor piece of legislation, he is something of an orphan within the Federal Government, carrying far less weight in its councils than the Minister of Finance, who is also directly concerned with the bill we now have before us for consideration.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
I must say, Mr. Chairman, that when I thought about the fact that we might be considering this resolution fairly soon, my mind went back to a year ago last January when
Fisheries Improvement Loans Act we had a Federal-Provincial Fisheries Conference in Ottawa, an event which was heralded as being something of major significance to the fishing industry of Canada and was going to usher in a new era of national fisheries policy. When I look back over what has happened in Parliament since that time, this would appear to be the second matter dealing with the fishing industry, as far as my recollection goes, that has come before the House since that time. The other matter that did come before the House had to do with the extension of our territorial fishing zones. Here again, the impact of that piece of legislation has been really of very little consequence to date.
As I pointed out in the House through a question to the Acting Prime Minister the other day, addressing him as Secretary of State for External Affairs, it is now almost a year since the Act was proclaimed in respect of territorial fishing zones which gave to the Governor in Council the power to set base line co-ordinates, and there has been no action as yet to establish those base lines. If I may say so in passing, Mr. Chairman, I think that situation in itself highlights the correctness of the position that some of us in this House took at that time, namely that a matter which affected the national boundaries of Canada should be the subject matter of direct action by this House rather than being put aside into what has obviously become a sort of Never-Never Land for legislation, because of inaction by the Governor in Council. The net result of that piece of legislation has been perhaps to lull the people of Canada who maybe have not much acquaintance with the fishing industry into thinking that the present Government has proposed and accomplished something significant in the fisheries field, when in point of fact they really have not done very much except set up in the House a piece of window dressing legislation.
Now we have a proposal to make a modest revision to the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act which will increase the total which can be borrowed, from the great sum of $4,000 to $10,000, which is the maximum for any one loan, which will provide for a small extension of the repayment period and renew this program for another five years. I think we have to consider this resolution in the context of the present picture. The Minister will recall that when the Premier of Newfoundland presented the brief of the Government of that Province to the Federal-Provincial Conference he laid before it, with
June 18, 1965

Fisheries Improvement Loans Act some emphasis, a letter he had received from the present Prime Minister when he was Leader of the Opposition, in which the Prime Minister assured the Premier of Newfoundland that we would have a national fisheries program which would parallel what had been done and what would yet be done in the field of agriculture. Yet, as I say, this is only the second piece of fisheries legislation which has been put forward. I would also suggest, Mr. Chairman, that surely no one on the opposite side of the House would wish to claim that the proposal advanced in this resolution is any major step toward creating a program for the fisheries that parallels the program in respect of agriculture.
At the beginning of last session we had a Speech from the Throne, as we usually do at the beginning of a session, and then we had a speech from the Prime Minister after the Leader of the Opposition had spoken. In that debate of a year ago last February the Prime Minister, as I recall it, delivered himself of some rather extensive remarks. Having listened to the Prime Minister rather carefully and having just prior to that sat in on some of the sessions of the Federal-Provincial Fisheries Conference, I was awaiting with a good deal of interest some expansion by the Prime Minister on the brief reference in the Speech from the Throne to the development of a fisheries program. The fact was that during the whole of his speech, which went on at some considerable length, as I have said, the Prime Minister never once mentioned fish or the fisheries. On February 21, 1964, as reported at page 91 of Hansard for that session, I asked the Prime Minister the following question:
Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. In his speech yesterday the Prime Minister made reference to broadening and expanding the scale of farm credit. He made no reference to the fishery. I should like to ask him what measures he has in mind to parallel this action as far as the fishery is concerned.
Hansard records that Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister) replied:
Mr. Speaker, I am very conscious of the fact that I did not mention fisheries in my statement yesterday. It was an omission, but I can assure my hon. friend that assistance to agriculture in the form of broadening the basis of farm credit and in other ways will certainly be paralleled by help to the fishery.
As I say, that was on February 21, 1964, and as far as I know from that day until this the Prime Minister has never said anything in this House about a new national


fisheries program. The resolution which we have before us is the first definitive action proposed in this Parliament, as far as I can recall, since February 21, 1964, when the Prime Minister gave me that answer, that could even remotely be considered to be creating a parallel program for the fishery. The summary of operations of the last year for which we have a fisheries report-


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. Member permit a question?


Mr.   Barnell@: Yes.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Has the hon. Member made any attempt at all to make himself aware of or to familiarize himself with the different measures which have been taken in recent months to assist the fishing industry?
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I have tried to remain reasonably alert to what has been proposed and is being done by the Department of Fisheries. I freely admit that I am not as familiar with the details of what is going on in the fishery on the Atlantic coast of Canada as I might like to be, and had we had a lengthy recess of the House I might have been able to visit that part of the country. But as far as the west coast of Canada is concerned I know, for example, that the Department of Fisheries is undertaking some developments in the northern part of the province in the region of spawning channels, and that some work is being done in fields of this sort. I know our scientists in the biological station at Nanaimo have been continuing their program of research, and some oceanographic surveys have been conducted in the Pacific. Certainly I am aware that what over a period of many years has been the normal program of the Department of Fisheries has been going on during the last year or so. I know the Minister or his officials have held certain conferences with the provinces on certain aspects of the fishery. I understand there is under consideration some developments in marketing board arrangements for the inland fisheries of the Prairie Provinces, but I have not heard the Minister announce in the House that these arrangements have come to any form of fruition.
I am not trying to deny or downgrade the activities of the small but in my opinion, quite efficient Department of Fisheries which we have in Canada. All I am trying to do is to suggest that its activities are a far cry from the brave words expressed by the present
June 18, 1965	COMMONS
Prime Minister to the Premier of Newfoundland, which were verified to some extent by the answer he gave to me on February 2i, 1964 and any program of action which the Government has placed before this Parliament in this connection. If there are events going on that the Minister feels the House should know about, I would certainly be quite happy to have him spend some time during this present discussion detailing them to us.
I have endeavoured to ask what changes are going to be made to the International Fisheries Conventions relating to the North Pacific which will ensure protection, conservation and development of our Pacific fishery. As far as I know we have not come to any resolution of those problems. I could go on to enumerate other matters, but I do not want to stray too far from the subject matter of the resolution, which after all has to do with the matter of providing credit facilities for the development of the fishery.
The Minister did refer to the situation in Newfoundland and indicated that some special consideration was being given by him to this matter. According to the last official report available to us, that for the year ending March 31, 1964, since the inception of the Act the total amount of loans made to Newfoundland amounted to $19,003. The Minister has said that the report for the fiscal year just ended is not yet officially available, although I thank him for making reference to some of the operations of the past year which appear to bear out that there has not been any radical alteration in the situation.
I note that the Premier of Newfoundland appears to have been concerned about this matter of loans to Newfoundland, because in his brief to the federal-provincial fisheries conference he points out that only 12 loans had been made in Newfoundland up to the time the report was prepared. He points out that under the Farm Improvement Loans Act, by 1962 over $1.2 billion, almost 1,000 times the total of $1.3 million under the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act, had been lent. I have been wondering whether the Minister could explain a little further this matter of the extension of credit facilities under provincial loan boards. We have not had anything of this kind in British Columbia, in view of the fact that the Premier of Newfoundland, among others, is apparently quite concerned over the fact that this fisheries loans legislation has not been of much value to the fishermen of Newfoundland.
DEBATES	2631
Fisheries Improvement Loans Act
This leads me to observe that we should be aware of just how limited is this present legislation, a limitation which the resolution does nothing to change. It is a situation which, as I see it, would be parallel to the situation concerning financing of housing in this country if the only legislation available was in the realm of providing insurance or loan guarantees, or if under the National Housing Act there were no provisions for direct lending for housing construction.
* (3:00 p.m.)
It seems to me that as this legislation stands there is very good reason for the fact that it has been of such limited value in its application to the fishery. I remember that when this legislation was brought in some of us were successful in arguing that in addition to the use of banks as lending institutions there should be provision for inclusion of credit unions and caisses populates, which suggestion was agreed to at the time. But the fact of the matter is that in many institutions banking facilities, or for that matter credit unions, are not available to fishermen in a convenient way. I should like to hear more from the Minister about his theory as to how provincial loan boards can meet the situation, and more about how these provincial loan boards can be financed. If we are going to create a financial assistance program to make credit available to fishermen which will in any way parallel the assistance provided to the agricultural industry or the assistance provided in respect of the construction of houses in Canada, we will have to set up better machinery, with provision for direct loans to fishermen, than exists at the present time.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: It already exists.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: The Minister suggests that this machinery already exists. I do not know where it is, except in the form of banks and credit unions which will provide loans guaranteed by the Government, in the event of losses sustained as a result of nonrepayment.
It is my feeling that the basic principle of insured loans, such as exists in respect of housing, provides a very useful mechanism, but I wonder why the Minister's Department has not been able to set up the proper machinery by which these loans could be handled and processed to a greater degree of efficiency than at this time. I realize there are officers of his Department who concern themselves with the fishing vessels insurance program; but the resolution we have before us, while it is all right in itself, emphasizes
2632	COMMONS
Fisheries Improvement Loans Act the very limited nature of the program so far put forward by the Government in respect of the provision of added credit facilities for fishermen.
The Minister made reference in his opening remarks to the fact that in certain segments of the industry capital arrangements can readily be made. That may be perfectly true in respect of some of the larger, more integrated operations of the industry in certain parts of Canada, and it is certainly true of certain segments of the industry in British Columbia, but what some of us are concerned about is a program which would assist many individual fishermen who for decades have been in the hands of the so-called private entrepreneurs to the extent that they have never been able to get themselves out of debt. We should like to see a financial program which would enable these individuals to lift themselves up and become independent and self-sufficient.
From my observations of the operation of this Act, it is obvious that while it has been all right as far as it goes, it certainly has not achieved its purpose. From the observations I have been able to make and as a result of the information I have heard given to this House from time to time by Members representing the Atlantic Provinces,
I certainly have gained the impression that there is a great deal of room for improvement as far as the positions of the individual fishermen in that area are concerned.
I realize that the total answer to the problems of fishermen on either of our coasts does not lie in the provision of more adequate credit facilities, but that many other factors are involved. This is perhaps not the time or the place to go into them, but I should certainly like the Minister before we proceed with this resolution to give us some indication of what he and the Government have in mind, in addition to this modest proposal he has now put forward on behalf of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon).


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, I rise at this time to state very briefly that this party supports not only the five year extension in respect of fishermen's loans under the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act, but also the increase from $4,000 to $10,000.
We were very interested to hear the Minister state that loans made by credit unions under the provisions of this Act will be guaranteed by the Government, as well as those loans granted by the chartered banks of this country. We believe that this is a good prin-

DEBATES	June 18. 1965
ciple and that it should be extended to the Farm Improvement Loans Act. I am not critical of the manner in which the chartered banks have handled the Farm Improvement Loans Act in the past.
When the Minister was speaking he said, as did the former Minister of Fisheries, the senior hon. Member for Queens, that he was disappointed to some extent by the amount of use that has been made of the provisions of this Act by fishermen. I suggest that by raising the ceilings the Minister will not find the complete answer to the problem of providing the necessary credit to enable fishermen to carry on their operations in an efficient manner. Inasmuch as the present Minister and the previous Minister have expressed the same disappointment as to the use being made of these provisions, it seems to me that the Minister ought to have a very hard look at the manner in which the chartered banks are dealing with fishermen. We experienced problems in this regard under the Farm Improvement Loans Act, as well as under the old Farm Loan Board, in that there was plenty of authority to make credit available, but the amount and type of security the banks required was such that the purpose of these programs failed. The jobs they were intended to perform were not effectively done. There may be a similar problem in this regard.
The Minister has said that in many areas where fishermen require this credit, there are no banking facilities readily available. If that is the case and the Minister feels that some improvement can be made in the use of these provisions, he ought to consider the situation at the local level to see whether that is the place whether the difficulty is developing.
On behalf of the party to which I belong, I should like to say that we support the extension of five years and the increase in the ceiling, although we do not think these changes will necessarily solve the problem. We hope that this measure can be implemented as quickly as possible.
[DOT] (3:10 pjn.)


Mr. Plourde:: Mr. Chairman, I only have a few words to say about a point which has not been raised, that is the markets. First, allow me to point out that it is an appropriate day to speak about fisheries, since it is Friday.
I am convinced that fishermen will be very proud and satisfied with this measure granting them an extension of 8 to 10 years to repay loans and increasing them from $4,000
June 18, 1965	COMMONS
to $10,000. This is a first step taken by the government.
On the other hand, the true problem would be to find a market to guarantee the sale of their fish. If fishermen must borrow to buy some modern fishing equipment in order to improve their efficiency and if they are not sure that they will sell their entire catch, they will always hesitate to do so. Such is the problem in the Gaspe peninsula at present. Fishermen have signed a contract with the United States who set and control the price of fish. Recently, the Quebec Minister of Fisheries was approached by the government of Haiti in order to enter into a contract for $3 to $5 million worth of fish. They were told there was a shortage of fish and that the small catch along the Gaspe coast was used solely to fill orders from the U.S., since they hold an exclusive contract.
If the government were to guarantee the sale of all the fish, as well as its distribution throughout the country, fishermen would no longer have to sell their surplus abroad.
In addition, several countries would be interested in dealing with us, but our governments do not seem to care. They should look after the marketing of our surplus fish; this would provide the industry with some profit and the fishermen with a certain amount of security; under those conditions they would equip themselves so as to make the largest catches possible; but, without that assurance that they can sell all their production, they will not be interested in obtaining loans and getting further into debt.


Mr. Carter:: Mr. Chairman, like other Members who have preceded me I welcome the resolution in the knowledge that this amendment will benefit some fishermen in some parts of Canada. Having said that, I must point out that I was glad the Minister himself recognized the fact that this legislation will not be of any material benefit to the people of my riding, and I doubt that it will be of very much benefit to the fishermen of Newfoundland generally.
Some Members have attributed this to the lack of banks. It is true that we have very few branches of chartered banks in the smaller fishing communities of Newfoundland. In my own riding there are six. Two of them are quite close together on the Burin peninsula and the others are scattered along a coastline that extends for nearly 1,000 miles. But that is not the main reason. Even in those communities where banks are readily accessible
DEBATES	2633
Fisheries Improvement Loans Act the fishermen cannot make any use of this legislation mainly because the bank managers, for some reason which I have not been able to fathom, are very reluctant to make loans to fishermen even though the loans are guaranteed by the Government.
I think the hon. Member for Comox-Alberni said that up to the time the Dominion-Provincial Conference was held a year ago 12 loans had been made in Newfoundland amounting in total to $19,000. Two of those loans were made in my own riding, and I know about them because I know they would never have been made if I had not personally underwritten them. Therefore this amendment will not improve the situation so far as Newfoundland fishermen are concerned.
The Minister said he was disappointed that fishermen had not made more use of this legislation, but I was glad to hear him say that this is changing and fishermen are gradually making more and more use of it. I presume that is the reason for the extension of the maximum amount of loan. As I listened to the Minister I was struck by the similarity between this legislation and the legislation placed on the statute books several years ago making provision for loans to small businesses. I think the Minister said that the total amount of loans made under this legislation would not exceed $20 million. The same thing has happened in the case of small business loans. So far as my riding and province are concerned, that legislation has not served the purpose for which it was intended.
We in Newfoundland would be quite happy with smaller loans, even less than $4,000, if they were obtainable but, as I said, we have so few banks and no credit unions and the banks are not accessible to fishermen. They are hundreds and hundreds of miles distant. The only way to get to them is by sea, which is expensive and can take a lot of time. So it is just impossible for the fishermen to make any use of the legislation.
I was glad to hear the Minister say that some other provision would have to be made to take care of the problem in Newfoundland. We need small loans to look after special needs. In Newfoundland we have the inshore fishery and the deep sea fishery. The deep sea fishery is taken care of under the shipbuilding program and the measures to which the Minister referred in his interjection in the remarks of the hon. Member for Comox-Alberni. But so far as the inshore fishery is concerned, it is not in the fisherman's interest to saddle himself with a huge amount of
2634	COMMONS
Fisheries Improvement Loans Act debt. The smaller he can keep the capital investment, the better. In my opinion it should not exceed $5,000 per person and the maximum of $10,000 should preferably be divided among two or three persons.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
What we need in Newfoundland is a loan fund that will take care of emergencies. A fisherman may need a new boat. He can go into the woods and cut the timber for the frame but he needs some ready cash, $400 or $500 or perhaps $1,000, to buy planking for the hull and deck. If he has a boat, it is probably in his interest to get one of the small diesel engines that are now available on the world market. These little engines range in power from 5 horsepower up to 15 or 20 horsepower, but usually from 5 to 10 horsepower. They cost anywhere from $500 to $800. There should be a fund to which the fishermen can go to secure that amount of money. He is not saddled with a great amount of debt, and he is in a fair position to repay it over a short period.
Last winter one of my fishermen fishing with a longliner suddenly had $1,000 worth of gear destroyed by a foreign trawler. Well, this was a tremendous loss. He could not go to the bank because he had no more security to put up to satisfy the bank. He had to do without this gear until a merchant or a plant operator provided him with it. Only last week I had a letter from a constituent who said he could make a fairly good living if he could get a fleet of nylon gill nets. He has not been able to afford to get them up until now. These nets can be purchased through a Government agency for about $50, and can be put into the water for perhaps $75, fitted with moorings, floats and everything. He needs the cash, and he does not have it. The only other alternative for him is to purchase these nets through a supplier, but instead of paying $50 for the nets he will pay $100 or perhaps $120, exclusive of the moorings. These are examples of the needs which our fishermen want met.
The trouble with this legislation is that it does not help the people who most need help. If a person can go to a bank and get a loan of $10,000 under this legislation, he does not need the legislation. He could likely get the $10,000 loan anyway. It is the poor fisherman who has no security to offer except his good name, his industry and his reputation as a fisherman, who needs the help. Somebody has to take him at his face value and advance money on his character.

DEBATES	June 18, 1965
Now, we have two loan funds in Newfoundland. We have the Fisheries Development Loan Fund, and that fund is used mainly for large loans for fishermen who want to buy Danish seiners. I do not believe that fund has been successful at all. What has happened has been this: A fisherman goes to this loan fund and obtains a loan of $40,000 or $45,000 to build a Danish seiner of about 75 feet. This is a tremendous amount of debt. Along with that, the marine insurance on this ship is very high and the operating expenses are high. By the time this man pays off his loan, he is right back where he started. He catches more fish, but he is no better off. The extra production goes to pay off the loan.
The most successful arrangement we have had in my Province has been a little fund that originated when the Premier of Newfoundland sold the Newfoundland Savings Bank to the Bank of Montreal. About $1 million was produced from that sale and it was split into two funds, half for the farmers and half for the fishermen. The purpose of the fund was to grant small loans to fishermen. There was a limitation as to what they could buy. They could buy only those types of gear and build those types of boats which met Government specifications. However, this fund could not begin to satisfy the demand. The amount of the loan was limited to less than $1,000. I think the average loan would be about $450.
Now, this legislation will not touch that need at all because the person who needs the help is not in a position to take advantage of it. I do want to appeal once more to the Minister. This legislation is all right. It will help somebody, and we will support it. However, so far as my Province is concerned and so far as my riding is concerned, we want a different form of financing. I hope the Minister will see to it that a fishermen's loan fund will be set up. I disagree with the hon. Member for Queens when he says this should be a provincial responsibility. I do not see why it should not be the responsibility of the Federal Government to provide this form of help to the fishermen, just as the Federal Government aids the farmers. We have more or less committed ourselves to do as well for the fishermen as we do for the farmers. I do hope the Minister will tackle this problem without any further delay.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: It is not my intention to speak at any great length or delay unnecessarily the passage of this resolution. I listened with great interest to the remarks of the hon.
June 18, 1965

Member for Burin-Burgeo. I could not help but note, with amazement, the marked similarity between the difficulties which face the inshore fishermen in Newfoundland and those which face our inshore fishermen in Nova Scotia. I dare say this is true of the entire Atlantic Provinces. The senior Member for Queens, and former Minister of Fisheries, stated that the Official Opposition's position is to approve of this resolution, and with that observation I concur.
The resolution before us states:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act to increase the maximum loan amount to a fisherman from four thousand dollars to ten thousand dollars and to increase the maximum repayment period from eight years to ten years and also to extend the period during which guaranteed loans may be made for a period of five years from June 30, 1965 to June 30, 1970.
Obviously, if this Act were going to be used at all the amount of the guaranteed loan had to be increased and the repayment period extended, especially in view of constantly rising costs. This is a very minor piece of legislation. It has not been, since the date of its inception, very beneficial to fishermen. In fact, many fishermen and bankers as well are apparently unaware of the existence of the Act. It is my understanding that the original purpose of this legislation was to facilitate the provision of term loans to fishermen, credit was being made available to finance a broad range of investments including the purchase, construction or improvement of fishing vessels, fishing equipment and shore installations. It was introduced in 1955 for a period of three years. The Government indicated at that time it would undertake to reimburse individual lending institutions for losses up to 15 per cent of loans or an aggregate of $500,000. A guarantee of 10 per cent is applicable in respect of loans, and that is not to exceed $500,000. There is an over-all limit of $20 million on the total amount of guaranteed loans which may be made by all lending institutions.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
This Act was amended in 1959 and again in 1962. This resolution therefore represents the third time on which the Act has been amended or extended since its introduction. I simply note that the Minister has decided that the period of the guaranteed loan would be extended for another five years, or until June 30, 1970. I agree with this move. I do not see why this Act should come before Parliament every three years. However, it is

Fisheries Improvement Loans Act evident that since its inception this legislation has met with only modest acceptance among the people it was designed to benefit. The number of loans granted makes this clear. In fact from the time of its inception in 1955 to March 31, 1964, a total of only 1,379 loans have been made, amounting in value to approximately $1,916,727. During this period a total of 281 loans were made in Nova Scotia to an amount of $392,248.
It is interesting to see for what purpose these loans were made. Loans for fishing equipment accounted for 365, to a value of $403,122. There were 1,003 loans in respect of the purchase or repair of vessels and boats, the total being $1,493,883. Eleven were in respect of the building and construction of vessels totalling in value $19,722. It is therefore evident that this Act has not been very beneficial to our fishermen or to the industry. It seems to me that some major improvements should be brought about which would make this legislation more attractive and more adapted to the needs of our fishermen. Last year only 202 loans were made, to a value of $368,229. Of the total number of loans made since the inception of this scheme, 897 amounting in value to $1,284,142 have been repaid. It is interesting to note that only three claims amounting to $615 have been paid by the Government since the inception of this Act.
A study of the small pamphlet put out by the Department of Fisheries covering the terms of this Act may well explain the reason for its lack of popularity. For example, it offers the fisherman no solution to his problem in time of disaster, and if he should lose his boat and fishing gear, which are not always adequately insured, he is not in a position to make the down payment for a new boat which is required by the chartered banks. I believe the amendments proposed, though beneficial, do not go far enough, and I think the government should give more consideration to the needs of our inshore fishermen when introducing amendments to the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act. After all, our inshore fishermen are still a vital factor in the economy of the Atlantic Provinces. Our lobster fishermen, for example, still top the list in dollar earnings and their catch generally represents 30 per cent of our province's landed value, which in 1964 was in excess of $42 million. The total catch for the Atlantic Provinces was 45 million pounds, worth $20 million.
Lobster fishing is one phase of the fishing industry which remains in the hands of the
2636	COMMONS
Fisheries Improvement Loans Act primary producer, and one can safely say that it is the prime factor in keeping alive the inshore fishing industry along the entire coast line of Nova Scotia. Lobstering is usually a two-man partnership. Sometimes it is a father and son business, with each sharing equally in the profits and the losses. There are also some fishermen who like to go it alone. The lone fisherman is typical of the lobster fishery. Rugged and independent, he represents a way of life where a man is his own boss and where one's reward depends on the sweat and toil put into the job. Certainly this is no nine-to-five job. When I am at home in Lunenburg I am sometimes awakened by the loud exhaust of the lobster fishermen's boats as they put out to sea around four o'clock in the morning to haul in their traps. These sturdy individualists are representive of the fibre and sinew of this nation and they have truly earned the title of primary producers.
When the weatherman is kind and the sea gives up its red treasure, these inshore fishermen seek no help from anyone. But when disaster strikes and their meagre resources are inadequate to enable them to replace their boats and equipment they must turn to someone for help. This happens all too frequently. Last year, 39 fishermen were lost in the Maritimes, the greatest single tragedy being the loss of the trawler Acadia Sea Hawk when Captain Ronald Mosher and his crew of 13 men vanished beneath the shroud of a wintry Atlantic storm. Other than those aboard the Sea Hawk, the death toll involved mostly inshore fishermen. Inshore fishing accidents happen frequently and only a few months ago we read in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald how Keith Dixon and his 17-year-old son narrowly escaped death when a gasoline tank aboard their Cape Island type motorboat exploded at Woods Harbour, Nova Scotia. The boat-only three years old-was badly damaged by fire.
How will this legislation help these people? Oh, the Minister may say, they can get a loan under this Act to replace their boat and equipment. Let us look at the pamphlet and see what security they need. In the section dealing with security for a loan the pamphlet states the requirements to be:
(a)	A promissory note signed by the fisherman and endorsed by one or more financially responsible persons, or
(b)	Security on an insured fishing vessel...
(c)	If the principal amount of the loan is $1,000 or less, an assignment of moneys to be paid to the fisherman.
Let us suppose no one will sign this note. His boat is destroyed and his earnings without

DEBATES	June 18, 1965
equipment are negative. How does this fisherman get re-established? Would not a personal life insurance policy for the amount of the loan or the equity in a home be acceptable security? The Act is not clear on this point.
In the first part of the pamphlet the Department defines those who make application for a loan. It lists a fisherman as one who has a legal interest in a fishing vessel or a fish trap, and who intends to gain his livelihood from catching fish for sale. Many of today's fishermen find it difficult to qualify under this section of the Act, since they may not own shares in ships. I think a fisherman could also be defined as one who spends three or more months at sea, and whose unemployment insurance book contained sufficient stamps to verify this fact. The only real benefit under this Act at present is the 5 per cent interest rate on any loan that may be secured. However, when all the factors facing our inshore fishermen are taken into consideration, this is truly a very small concession.
If the Department is desirous of really assisting our inshore fishermen I would suggest it give more consideration to their real needs. In order to do this, conferences or consultations should be held in those areas where large numbers of our people are engaged in fisheries. The views of these men should be noted by our departmental experts and conveyed to our naval architects, our ship and boat builders and our engine and equipment suppliers, so that every aspect of improvements in small fishing craft could be studied. This could well bring about a more satisfactory and efficient design of inshore craft which the Department of Fisheries could approve, and which would then be more acceptable as collateral for a loan when any inshore fisherman desired a new boat or a replacement boat.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that the amount of any loan approved, and which is guaranteed by the Government, should be supported to a greater extent by the Government than at present, especially when the fisherman suffers a major loss. A Government guarantee of a minimum of 25 per cent repayment on the loan would be a suitable amendment to this Act, especially when a fisherman loses his boat and all his equipment in a storm or major disaster. I hope the Government will give careful consideration to these proposals and implement them in this bill, or in the not-too-distant future.
June 18, 1965	COMMONS


Mr. Granger:: Mr. Chairman, I welcome the opportunity of joining those who have spoken on this resolution. 1 might add that, like the other speakers, I am pleased to see the broadening of this particular Act with a view to making it applicable to a greater number of the needs of fishermen. I am especially interested, however, in the needs of the inshore fishermen in the immediate future. Had I the time, Mr. Chairman, I would talk about some other aspects of the fisheries development program, such as the centralization program, the legislation for the 12-mile limit, and so on; but the fisheries development program of necessity is a complex one and deals with many facets of the fishing industry from the time before the fish is even caught up to the time it is sold. Such a program has to be far reaching; it will take time to get into full effect, and is one which will require the efforts of many officials both federal and provincial.
In the interim, however, the productivity of fishermen must be increased. I cannot think of a better way to get immediate results so that the incomes of fishermen can be improved than making available loans for those fishermen who need to improve their boats and gear, to improve their shore installations, and beyond that, to assist those men who perhaps are not fishermen now or who at one time were fishermen and want to return to the fisheries but do not have the boats, gear or money and must obtain capital assistance in order to become fishermen.
Without doubt, Mr. Chairman, capital assistance can be of immediately help to fishermen who wish to improve their existing equipment. A fisherman may require a new engine; he may want to make repairs to his boat, to his fishing gear, his traps or his trawls. When he is able to borrow the money for these things he is immediately equipped to produce more efficiently and to improve his income. I cannot think of a better way, with the possible exception of a further extension of the bait service, to immediately permit an increase in the income of fishermen than the provision of a means whereby fishermen can obtain capital assistance.
Like other speakers, Mr. Chairman, I wish to register by approval of the resolution and express the hope that fishermen will use this legislation. I also express the hope which has already been expressed by previous speakers, namely that the Minister of Fisheries will determine the necessity of making available to fishermen the capital assistance with which
DEBATES	2637
Fisheries Improvement Loans Act they can immediately become more productive and thereby earn better incomes. I was very glad to hear the Minister say that he had in mind the Province of Newfoundland with respect to the availability of loans under this Act. I have no doubt that the Minister will take whatever steps are necessary in order that there will be greater use made of this Act by the fishermen themselves. I do not wish to unduly delay the passage of this legislation, Mr. Chairman, and will conclude simply by reiterating the fact that there is perhaps no better way in which fishermen can immediately improve their position than taking advantage of capital assistance.


Mr. Danforlh:: Mr. Chairman, I rise to deal with one specific problem in connection with this matter. I would certainly like to compliment the Minister of Fisheries upon the step he has taken in increasing the scope of the loan and the amount of time given to the borrower to repay that loan. The problem I wish to discuss concerning loans is one that is perhaps bothering the Minister as well. I believe he is very familiar with it, because it is not a new problem. It is the fact that with regard to the inland fisheries and the fishermen I have the honour to represent, although there are grants, subsidies and loans made available at the federal level, for some unexplained reason it seems impossible for these loans to be made available to inland fishermen to the same degree that they are available to the coastal fishermen.
Only yesterday in the lake port of Wheatley there was a meeting of fishermen, the processors and the provincial Department of Lands and Forests which dealt with this very problem, namely the inability of local fishermen to take advantage of federal provisions. I would like to ask the Minister- and I listened with great interest when he discussed the fact that federal-provincial boards were being set up-because of his awareness of this problem, is there some way in which a meeting or an investigation could be held here in the Province of Ontario to see if it is not possible to work out a way in which the local fishermen could be placed on the same basis as coastal fishermen, as far as loans are concerned? It could well be that because there is no Department of Fisheries in Ontario and the fisherman must make representation to the Department of Lands and Forests, the vehicle is not present whereby such action can be taken. If such is the case, I think we should know it and
June 18, 1965

Fisheries Improvement Loans Act know it now, so that the appropriate steps can be taken to remedy this ill.
I know that when the fishermen of that area speak of not being able to obtain these loans, subsidies and grants, they are stating the fact, because I have been to the previous government and this Government with these fishermen to discuss their problem in detail. I have found the departments here very sympathetic in regard to the problems of the local fishermen and wishing to do all in their power to help these men, but they have been unable to find the mechanics for so doing. I have made representations to the provincial department and found there, too, sympathy for the problems of these fishermen, but they also seem unable to find an avenue of approach.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
I would like to ask the Minister if he will give me a specific undertaking that he will look into this matter and see whether it is not possible from now on to put the local fishermen, the inland fishermen, on the same basis as far as loans, grants and subsidies are concerned as the fishermen on either coast. Because there is very little value in increasing the amount of loans or increasing the time to repay them if the local inland fishermen are not in position to take advantage of them.
The Minister has said that the amount lent so far is modest. He said he was disappointed at the use made of them. Perhaps the solution would be a concerted effort on the part of all parties to see why this is so, and whether something can be done at the earliest possible moment to widen the use of these loans. Farmers in my area have derived much benefit from the companion loans under the farm improvement loans legislation; these loans are used to a tremendous degree by local farmers. I would ask the Minister what can be done, either by working through the provincial fishing bodies or directly, to see that the local fishermen, the honest, hard working men who are facing grave problems today, are not placed in a position where they cannot receive the necessary funds to carry on their business, which I am sure they would be glad to do if given every opportunity.


Mr. Cashin:: Mr. Chairman, I apologize for delaying the Committee a little; I know the mood of the Committee is to get on with the business this afternoon. Perhaps the only thing of significance which will be said of my speech when I sit down is that it will

probably be longer than the Gettysburg address.
May I say first of all that were it not for the inclusion in the remarks of the Minister of an awareness of the lack of application of this Act, then I would find it very difficult to support this resolution. I think this Act is a great illustration of the mentality of many people who perhaps are in charge of rationalizing certain programs to make them acceptable to the standards of a mysterious class of people. This is an orthodox bill because it implies that the fishermen can get assistance by going to a bank. The fact that the legislation does not work is not, I suppose, of very much concern to some of those who have more the mentality perhaps of an accountant rather than that of an economist or sociologist, and it is a neat little package.
In the past two years the Minister has made aware to those of us who realize the inadequacies that he is fighting to do something about them. I am not going to eulogize the accomplishments of the past two years; I have done that on many occasions and I do not deem it necessary to do so at this time. However, I would say that he has probably been the most successful Minister of Fisheries on record. It is a tough job, particularly when dealing with the province of Newfoundland.
A lot has been said about our small boats and our inshore fishermen, who comprise 95 per cent of the Newfoundland fishermen. I think we must admit that the coming thing in fisheries is our off-shore fisheries. When we are talking about our inshore fishermen, we must realize more and more that our fishermen will become involved in our offshore fishery either on trawlers or in fish plants.
Once again I say there are forces at work in this country which would impede this development. There are already a number of successful operators in Canada who have managed to be successful in fishing enterprises. They are not particularly concerned about attracting new industry or fishing companies to develop the resources of the Atlantic Provinces. It is a great tragedy to witness so much activity by foreign countries off our shores, who send their boats to take the fish. While those few companies which do operate in the Atlantic provinces do well it seems to me that the real answer is to get some of these companies who are operating in Europe to operate off our shores through a Canadian subsidiary, thus developing our fishing industry.
June 18. 1965

There are those who are quite concerned about Canadian ownership, and I subscribe in many instances to the view they hold. But it does seem to me that any study of the fishing industry makes us aware of the fact that there are a few major companies in Europe who are now sending many of their ships to the Atlantic coast of Canada and also to Greenland, and these companies must be encouraged to affiliate with existing companies in the Atlantic Provinces in order to develop our fishery resources. Or in the alternative we should attempt to get the Canadian-owned companies to expand, although this may be physically impossible because of their limited number.
This particular piece of legislation is supposed to be of some help to the inshore fishermen, but it has failed in the past. I suppose it represents a nibbling at a very major problem. I am not asking, nor I think are any of us, that we look for a handout here or for something for small inshore fishing operators; but if these people are to increase their productivity they must be given more opportunity than they have had in the past to get the necessary funds to purchase the required gear. As I have said, this particular piece of legislation has not proved to be the answer. Perhaps many feel it is a neat little package which can be defended in certain quarters; but unless and until the proposed changes which the Minister suggested in his opening remarks are brought about, many of us will be unhappy with the situation.
Another important thing is that it is necessary to stress, when talking of fishing, the realization that our future lies in the development of our offshore fisheries, which will require bigger ships and modem and efficient plants. Once again this will require more imagination than has been exhibited by successive governments in past years when talking about development of this particular resource.
There is some consolation in the fact that over the past two years a considerable amount has been done in this regard. But just because problems have been attended to is no reason to ignore other problems which have gone unattended to for a long time. Right now across this country there is a greater awareness than ever before of a battle or war on poverty. This will require an imaginative approach. It is not merely a question of coming up with something somewhere which you think you can defend and then sitting on it for five years or so, saying that you have 22620-168
Fisheries Improvement Loans Act done something about it and that it is not your fault that the fishermen did not take advantage of it. Your attitude should be that if a problem is existing you must find its solution. It is ludicrous and a mockery just to present certain pieces of legislation and then rest upon them, to say that that is what you tried to do, and it is too bad it did not work. Our job is to find something that will work.
In the suggested 14 point program announced a few months ago by the Minister I think he showed this kind of leadership which in coming years will lead to a substantial improvement in incomes of fishermen in Newfoundland, and I congratulate him. But I also know that his task will not be an easy one because there will be those who perhaps will not understand the problems as well as he does. There will also be those who will be pushing him perhaps a little harder than they should, or sometimes a little unrealistically. A combination of those two things is, in my opinion, the best hope for a solution.


Paul Tardif: The
hon. Member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Would the hon. Member permit a question.


Richard Joseph Cashin: Yes.


Paul Tardif: Is the
hon. Member indicating that he wishes to ask a question?


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I understood the hon. Member was willing to allow me a question before he concluded his remarks.


Paul Tardif: Go
ahead.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: When the hon. Member refers to the fact the scope of this legislation was limited by an accounting mentality, did he have in mind that the Minister defined under the Act is the Minister of Finance?
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)


Richard Joseph Cashin: I do not at all, because I have always regarded the Minister of Finance as much more of an economist and sociologist than an accountant.


Mr. Ricard:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a few brief remarks about the resolution under consideration. Even though I am taking part in the debate, I am not to be considered as an expert on fisheries, but rather as an amateur who, like the hon.
June 18. 1965

Fisheries Improvement Loans Act member for Drummond-Arthabaska (Mr. Pepin), goes trout fishing occasionally. As a matter of fact, I would hope officials of the Department of Fisheries could lend both of us a hand so that we might be luckier and, thus, happier.
A few weeks ago I visited a part of the country where fishing is one of the principal means of subsistence. The fishermen X met there made me promise to take the first opportunity I would have in the house to make their views known to the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Robichaud).
As you are aware, Mr. Chairman, those fishermen are good citizens and they often experience great hardship in plying their trade. Since the Minister of Fisheries knows very well the conditions under which our fishermen live, he will undoubtedly give all his attention to the problems I will submit to him as briefly as possible.
The New Brunswick fishermen I met asked me to make representations to the minister and ask him to fulfil the promise made to them during the last election campaign, to set up a 12-mile zone. They also asked that it be done as soon as possible.
They also convinced me that a great number of fishermen from other countries still come to our shores in order to benefit from our natural resources which, they feel, belong to them.
These fishermen also reminded me that they had been promised, with much fanfare, that as soon as a Liberal government came to power, their problems would be settled, along with those of all other sectors of the Canadian economy.
But they wonder when the government will take action, because however commendable it may be to lend the fishermen more money, what good is it to open the national coffers so that they may go deeper into debt, if they are not allowed to have a territory in which to earn a decent living?
Mr. Chairman, I shall say no more, except to urge the Minister to act and to put into effect, after two years, what he and his associates of the Maritimes have promised, with so much publicity, during the last electoral campaigns.
The time to act has come and, on behalf of New Brunswick fishermen, I ask the minister to deal with their problems, which he fervently promised to do when he was in opposition.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Chairman, will the hon. member allow me a question?


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Yes, Mr. Chairman.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Can the hon. member tell me in what part of New Brunswick he met these fishermen?


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Chairman, I went to Newcastle and, more specifically, I was in the riding which the Minister of Fisheries represents here. Moreover, I must tell him that the comments I heard with regard to his lack of interest in the fate of fishermen, whom he previously held so dear, were far from complimentary.


Mr. Coates:: Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to hold up the passage of this resolution for any length of time, as I understand it is the intention of the House to complete the consideration of both the resolution and the bill today. I should like to mention one or two points, in view of the fact that there are many fishermen in my constituency who will be affected in a very helpful way by the recommendations contained in this resolution.
Obviously this resolution has been designed to make the fishermen aware of what is available to them in the form of credit. The former Minister of Fisheries pointed out that one third of the loans that had been approved under the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act, involving 25 per cent of the total amount that has been loaned, have been made to fishermen in the Province of Prince Edward Island. That certainly is not the largest province with a fishing industry, nor does it have the biggest fishing fleet in Canada, and the former Minister of Fisheries can take a good deal of credit in this regard. The people of the Atlantic provinces were much impressed by his policies in respect of this industry when he held the ministerial portfolio. I have no axe to grind with the present Minister of Fisheries, but I should like to say that it would indeed be difficult to find a man more interested in the problems of fishermen and the fisheries industry than the senior Member for Queens, the former Minister of Fisheries.
One of the problems I have encountered in speaking with the fishermen of my constituency relates to the fact that many of them are not anxious to go to banks to obtain loans. Over the years some of them have no doubt encountered difficulty in convincing bank managers that their operations are all that they feel they are. I hope the Minister will make certain that all fishermen are aware of the changes that are to be made to the Act and that the Government will guarantee the loans in question. I hope the
June 18. 1965	COMMONS
Minister can convince these fishermen that they should go to their banks to obtain the loans they require.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
It might well be that we would be better off if we were to establish a board rather than requiring fishermen to go to banks to secure loans. Quite often fishermen and other people are more willing to make application to a Government board for a loan than they are to approach a bank manager for the same purpose. While I do not necessarily know that this would be the solution to the problem, it is quite evident that there is a problem because the fishermen are not taking advantage of the provisions of the Act in the manner we would like them to. There is not much sense in increasing the amount available to fishermen by way of loans if they are not going to go to the banks to borrow the money.
The Minister of Fisheries represents a riding in the Maritime Provinces as I do and he is aware that a great many of our fishermen, especially lobster fishermen, would rather borrow money from the buyers of their product and operate in that manner than go to a bank to secure a loan. If they could be convinced that they could secure loans from the banks by making application for them, certainly they would have a much greater degree of independence than they have now in obtaining loans from the buyers of their product. Quite probably they would also secure a better price for their product and thus be in a much better financial position at the end of the year.
Something has to be done by the Minister and the Department to make fishermen aware of the availability of these loans and of the fact that they can go to a bank and get the money. In my view action must be taken with regard to these two points. As I have said, we might be wiser to set up a board to which fishermen could apply directly for loans, rather than following the present method. There is no doubt there is much more speed and efficiency associated with the securing of a loan under the present method. I am not one who usually wants to promote Government bureaucracy and red tape, but at the same time there is not much sense in having legislation on the statute books if people are not going to take advantage of it.


Mr. Macquarrie:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a word or two on this very important matter. Fishing is of tremendous importance to Prince Edward Island. The Almighty has blessed us in that our soil produces 22620-1681
DEBATES	2641
Fisheries Improvement Loans Act the finest potatoes in the world and our sea produces the best lobsters. Beyond that remark I will not go in the qualitative judgment of our commodities.
I should like to say that I appreciate the boost from the hon. Member for St. Hyacin-the-Bagot. Quebec and the Maritimes have a good deal in common in that on many issues we are probably not getting our fair share of the economic wherewithal of Confederation and perhaps we should be allied more often than we are in presenting our case to the Dominion entity.
I was, as I always am, impressed with the wisdom of my senior and I may say older colleague-appearances to the contrary that is a factual statement-the former Minister of Fisheries who was a most excellent minister representing a fishing province. What he has said I endorse completely, as I do the general remarks made by my colleagues from the Maritimes.
One is impressed and somewhat disturbed that so little use is made of this opportunity by our fishermen. It certainly is not that they are so well off, because many of them are far from it. I notice that Prince Edward Islanders are doing better in this regard than the fishermen of some other provinces. As the hon. Member for Cumberland has pointed out, I think it is incumbent upon the Government and the Minister actually to do something more to publicize the opportunities available and I hope he will do more. As my colleague here suggests, perhaps he could put his picture in the newspapers like the Minister of Labour did. This might do something in this regard. I will not say what it would do, but the fact is that more publicity is required.
I am impressed too that although this legislation has been on the statute books for some time there is, so far as I can recall, no gesture of financial assistance toward any industry which has cost the Government so little. When one contrasts the amount of loans and the amount of repayments he sees that there has been a very small outlay in terms of the tax dollar. I am not suggesting that there be more and more claims or that there be a lack of payment, but certainly we must all be seized with the idea that here is a measure of assistance with which the people in the industry are obviously not familiar, and that very little is being done that any private financial agency is not doing in the normal course of events.
There is one other aspect that concerns me which I may have a chance to discuss later.
June 18, 1965

Fisheries Improvement Loans Act I refer to the occasional drastic need for financial assistance which comes to our fishermen because of the elements and the destruction of gear, traps and so on. With a short season one wonders whether the machinery is sufficiently geared to meet that kind of need. But, like my other colleagues, in general I support the resolution and I suppose as good a way to support it as any is by not prolonging the discussion thereon.


Paul Tardif: Shall the resolution carry?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Chairman, I believe some hon. Members are expecting replies to the questions they have asked. First, I want to express my appreciation for the support which all Members who have spoken have given to the proposed amendments. I agree with the two hon. Members for Queens and the hon. Member for Cumberland that every possible action should be taken in order to advertise this legislation and try to make it more popular, more practical and, if at all possible, more available to the fishermen. I hope I will not have to agree to the suggestion made by the last Member who spoke, and have my picture put in the newspaper. I believe this would be of no assistance in making the legislation more available to fishermen. I know that most fishermen know me well enough that they do not need to see my picture in the newspapers.
The hon. Member for Comox-Alberni referred to the fishing zone legislation passed some 11 months ago. I have no doubt that the hon. Member is very conscious of his responsibility toward the fishing industry of his province and also of his responsibility in regard to our international relations with other countries. I am sure the hon. Member would not suggest that we take immediate, drastic action that could jeopardize our good international relations by adopting measures which could be detrimental to the fishing industry of his province as well as that of other parts of the country. He suggested in his remarks that nothing has been done about the fisheries development program such as we undertook to do following the Federal-Provincial Conference held some 15 months ago. [DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
I am sure that the hon. Member is well aware of the increased assistance which has been granted for the construction of fishing vessels, including vessels built for ground fishing operations in his own Province of British Columbia. I am sure the hon. Member would not suggest we take action now
[Mr. Macquarrie.l
to facilitate the construction of additional fishing vessels for the salmon industry. We would not be logical. According to the statistics advanced by the hon. Member we should exercise some control in an industry which, many of us believe and perhaps rightly, is being over-exploited. We would not be logical, therefore to assist in building more fishing vessels for that particular industry. I could say the same thing about the lobster industry on the Atlantic cost. I do not believe it would be logical for us to provide facilities for the construction of additional lobster fishing boats when we are trying to control this fishery which many of us believe is over-exploited.
The hon. Member knows also of the changes which have been made in the fishermen indemnity plan and the large number of cost-sharing programs which are now under way in the different provinces, along with the centralization program which has been introduced in Newfoundland, as well as the grants assistance program which has been announced by the Prime Minister on June 7 and which would provide in designated areas a subsidy of 33 J per cent for new processing industries or the extension of existing industries. These are only some of the measures which have been introduced recently in order to get this national program under way.
Now, most Members of this House are familiar with the operations of the different provincial loan boards. I do not believe it is the responsibility of the Federal Government to induce or force the Province of British Columbia to establish a provincial loan board. These loan boards have been very effective in the Atlantic Provinces and in the Province of Quebec. They have provided direct lending to fishermen. I am personally familiar with many of them and I had the responsibility of initiating such a board in the Province of New Brunswick in 1946. I was the secretary of that board for over six years. Since then, this board has lent millions of dollars to fishermen in the Province of New Brunswick. Similar boards exist in the Province of Nova Scotia, and other Atlantic Provinces and they have been very successful.
The hon. Member for Cumberland suggested that a Federal loan board might be established. I would be afraid that if such a measure were introduced it would lead to overlapping. Provincial loan boards are more familiar with the needs of the fishermen in
June 18, 1965

their respective provinces and, as I have said, they have been very effective. I want to say too, that as suggested by the hon. Member for Medicine Hat, we will try to find ways and means for making this legislation better known and, if at all possible, influence the banks to allow the fishermen to take greater advantage of it. The hon. Member for Queens-Lunenburg referred to a pamphlet which has been published to advertise this legislation. Personally, I thought this pamphlet, which was introduced under the previous administration, was quite effective. In view of the suggestion made by the hon. Member, we will try to improve it and make it still better.

The hon. member for Quebec West (Mr. Plourde) mentioned, concerning the sale of fish, that the Haitian government made an offer to purchase $3 million worth of fish.
In the fishing industry the difficulty is not to sell fish but to produce an abundance of high quality fish. We can now market all the fish we can produce.
If the province of Quebec, at the time this offer was made, could not meet the requirements as far as quality of quantity is concerned, it is because it was able to sell its catches on markets offering a better price. In the abovementioned case, of which I was aware, the offer related to the purchase of a certain quantity of dried cod for which the market is rather limited. Fishermen of the province of Quebec, like those of the Atlantic provinces, prefer perhaps a more modern or practical way of preparing fish according to the market demand.
As to the remarks of the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot (Mr. Ricard), the government of his province and not the federal government is responsible for trout production.

The hon. Member for Burin-Burgeo has suggested that we should provide credit for fishermen on the same terms as that available for farmers. I must say, Mr. Chairman, that the credit facilities made available to fishermen are comparable to those made available to farmers. I would say in many ways they are superior because we offer to fishermen certain subsidies for the construction of vessels or equipment which are not available to farmers. We provide subsidies of 25 to 50 per cent for the construction of certain types of vessels and there are many farmers who
Fisheries Improvement Loans Act would like to have the same advantage in the purchase of their equipment.
The hon. Member for Queens-Lunenburg referred to the definition of "fisherman". I believe if he had read clauses 2 and 3 of the regulations, he would have noticed that a fisherman was not only a person who had an equitable or legal interest in a fishing vessel but also in a weir or similar fish catching device. If he has any interest in this fishing equipment or if he is qualified for a licence, then he can qualify for a loan.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Will the Minister permit a question at that point? What would be the status of a fisherman who applied for a loan under this Act if, prior to his application, he was engaged entirely on a deep sea trawler and had no share in the trawler, or in any weir or any other piece of fishing equipment, but decided to leave deep sea fishing and participate in the inshore fishing industry, for which he would need a loan? What would he use to justify his situation as a fisherman?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: According to my interpretation of this Act and the regulations thereunder such a fisherman would be qualified for a loan because he would meet the main requirements of the Act. He would be in a position to place a certain deposit on his gear, which would be an equity in the gear, and I believe that under the Act he would qualify.
Now, the hon. Member for Grand Falls-White Bay- Labrador has suggested we should find more practical ways of giving capital assistance to the fishermen. I want to assure the hon. Member we are now studying that possibility. The hon. Member for Kent (Ont.), has argued that the inland fisherman cannot benefit to the same degree as the coastal fisherman under the present legislation, which is in fact applicable to inland as well as coastal fisheries. I have already explained to the hon. Member that in recent months the Government had a number of meetings with representatives of the Governments of the inland provinces and of Ontario to study the possibility of extending to those areas the same facilities which are available to the coastal provinces. We note the willingness of the provinces to join in some of these programs, and if this is done I want to assure the hon. Member that the Federal Government will be prepared to co-operate.
In reply to the hon. Member for St. John's West, I may say I agree with him that we must assist the small boat owner during this transition period. I am convinced that
June 18/ 1365

Fisheries Improvement Loans Act some fishermen will easily acquire such boats and we will try to do whatever we can to assist them during this transition period.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I hope I have answered most of the questions that were addressed to me. If this resolution is accepted by the House, I would hope I would have unanimous consent to proceed to second reading.


Paul Tardif: Shall the resolution carry?
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Perhaps while we are in committee on the resolution I might be permitted to address one or two questions to the Minister which might serve to avoid carrying on an extended discussion at other stages of the bill. I was interested in what the Minister had to say about the credit facilities offered by provincial loan boards in the Atlantic Provinces. He suggested that the funds made available ran into millions of dollars. I can understand that the Minister may not have detailed figures available to him today when we are dealing with Federal legislation, but I should be glad to have further particulars about these loan boards.
I should like to relate this information to remarks I made when I was quoting from a brief by the Government of Newfoundland. The Premier of that Province suggested that loans made to farmers under comparable legislation had been on a scale a thousand times greater than loans to fishermen under fisheries legislation. In order to put this into perspective I should like to refer to a table with which I am sure the Minister is familiar. This table indicates that the net product value of agriculture is some 20 times as great as the net product value of the fisheries. I am trying to get a picture of the total credit facilities available to fishermen as compared with those available to farmers, and the degree to which money available from provincial loan boards closes the gap between 20 to 1 and 1,000 to 1.


Mr. Rofcichaud:: I do not have complete information with me this afternoon, but the Province of New Brunswick has lent close to $10 million since the inception of their Loan Board Act in 1946. This year I believe more than $2 million was included for this purpose in their estimates. The figures for Nova Scotia may be somewhat higher. In proportion to the number of fishermen in the two provinces, the figures for Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island would be about the same.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I have one other point to raise with reference to the Minister's comment that he was sure I would not want to see more boats and gear go into an already overcrowded salmon industry in British Columbia. Let me make it clear I am one of those who have pointed out that something needs to be done about this situation. On the other hand I have heard many Members of this House representing farming constituencies express concern about what they refer to as vertical integration. My feeling is that vertical integration came to the fishing industry long before the farmers began to talk about it. I am wondering whether or not provision for credit is such as will enable fishermen to extricate themselves from the position in which many of them now find themselves.
Let me make my meaning clear. One of the papers which provides background information for the fisheries conference points out that traditionally many of the borrowing requirements of fishermen have been supplied by the merchants or processors who buy the fish. This source of credit has always been used, though the tendency now is to turn to other sources of credit. I should like the Minister to tell us how far this legislation will go to closing this gap. Are the arrangements adequate to enable a practising fisherman to extricate himself from a state of virtual peonage such as has existed over many years?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: There is no doubt this legislation will constitute an improvement compared with the existing legislation. I would point out particularly that the "ceiling" has been raised from $4,000 to $10,000.
Again, I cannot take responsibility for the provisions made by British Columbia which has not its own loan board. Possibly they do not see any need for a further extension of credit. Possibly they consider that over-fishing is already taking place in some cases, and they do not wish to see fishermen engaged in the salmon fishing operation. We are now providing a 50 per cent subsidy on the construction of fishing vessels for groundfish operations on the West Coast. This will be of some assistance. I know that in the Atlantic Provinces fishermen are taking the best possible advantage of the existing loan boards.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Robichaud thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-121, to amend the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act.

June 18. 1965

Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall this bill
be read the second time?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, we are willing to have it read the second time now, but we hope that when we get into Committee of the Whole the Minister will be willing to have that discussion put off to another sitting.


John Angus MacLean: As far as this party is concerned we would be quite agreeable to passing second reading of the bill. It is a very simple bill and there is nothing in the bill except what is contained in the resolution. It involves just a change of three words -the date and the amount, I am informed. If the House agreed, it would seem advisable to us to proceed with second reading and pass all stages of the bill, although in ordinary circumstances it is not a good practice to do this in the case of complicated bills containing a number of provisions.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: By unanimous consent.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: the second reading of the bill.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into Committee thereon, Mr. Lamoureux in the Chair.
Harold Edward Winch: May I at this time raise a question of privilege?


Lucien Lamoureux: Order, please. We are now
in Committee of the Whole and this is not a proper time at which to raise a question of privilege.
On clause 1-
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, we will go a step further than I indicated a moment ago. We will agree to putting the bill through the committee stage today, but we think it might be better to hold third reading until another day.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: This is perfectly agreeable, Mr. Chairman.


Harold Warren Danforth: Mr. Chairman, I would like to direct one question only to the Minister. Have I an undertaking that the Minister will see if something can be done to remove the block that exists with regard to inland fishermen receiving loans? This is quite a problem. I wonder if I could have an undertaking on that matter.

Fisheries Improvement Loans Act


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Chairman, I do not believe the hon. Member followed the reply that I gave a few moments ago to the questions he had asked. I said that loans under this legislation are available to inland fishermen as well as they are to coastal fishermen. In so far as Fishermen's Loan Boards are concerned, we have instituted Federal-Provincial Committees which have been meeting quite regularly in recent months to study the possibility of extending to the inland provinces not only loans which are available from provincial loan boards, although this is a decision to be taken by the provinces, but also assistance under the indemnity program. So we are doing everything possible to co-operate and I hope that we are not too far from agreement on this matter.


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out to the Committee, in passing, that I think great credit should be given to the fishermen of Canada who have taken advantage of this Act for the fact that during the whole of its existence there have been only three cases when claims have had to be paid by the Federal Government, and the total amount of actual expenditure on behalf of the Federal Government because of default in loan repayments is only $615. I think this is an extraordinary record. I want to say again that I think one of the reasons this Act is used in my Province more than in others, proportionately, is that the fishermen there are mostly part time fishermen and most of them are also farmers. They are therefore thoroughly familiar with financing under the Farm Improvement Loans Act, and having formed that habit they turn naturally to this Act. I have nothing more to say at the present time, Mr. Chairman, except that the other hon. Member for Queens, my hon. friend and colleague, made a statement which I think might in certain hon. Members' minds call into question his veracity when he said I was several years younger than him. Incredible as this may seem, Mr. Chairman, the hon. Member is perfectly correct and that is the fact.


Mr. Walker:: You would never know.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
[Stage Direction]
June 18. 1965
Questions of Privilege PRIVILEGE

Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, is this a time when I can rise on a matter of personal and House of Commons privilege of which I have given you notice?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. Member can state his question of privilege.


Harold Edward Winch: I would like very much, Sir, to raise a matter of not only personal privilege, but I think House of Commons privilege. It is not my intention to quote to Your Honour Standing Orders, custom or precedent. I approach you, Mr. Speaker, on the basis of one point alone, and that is that in your position and under your office and oath you are, Sir, the embodiment of the protection of the rights and privileges of Members of the House of Commons.
My question of privilege, therefore, Sir, on that basis and that basis alone, is to ask your consideration of what in my experience in the 12 years I have been in the House of Commons is one of the greatest insults given to yourself as Speaker, Sir, the Government and the House of Commons, in that in a newspaper published in Ottawa this afternoon, the Ottawa Citizen, there is a report of a Royal Commission, the Dorion Commission. The evidence, Sir, is there for all to see, because in the first paragraph it says:
Chief Justice Frederic Dorion's report on his judicial Inquiry will be handed to the Government on Monday, June 28, the day Prime Minister Pearson returns to his desk from London.
Mr. Speaker, that is ten days from today. Then four paragraphs later it says:
Although inquiry staff will not discuss Judge Dorion's findings, a source who claims to be informed-and whose record in situations of this sort in the past has been remarkably accurate-gives this preview of Judge Dorion's conclusions:
Not only do we then have what purports to be, on this authoritative source, the report of Chief Justice Frederic Dorion but we also have, Sir-and this is of the utmost importance-a photograph on the front page of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau) bearing the caption "Questions", and the picture of another Minister with the caption "Cleared". Then on page 3 the article is headed "Dorion preview". I say, Sir, that this is an absolute insult to the Commissioner, Chief Justice Dorion, an insult to the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), an insult to the Government, an insult to the House of Commons, and should be investigated immediately.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. Member had given notice approximately an hour ago of his intention to raise a question of privilege. I had at the time very serious doubts as to whether there was a real question of privilege, and I would like to refer the hon. Member to Beauchesne's Fourth Edition, Citation 105(2), which says:
It Is the practice in the House of Commons to bring up a question of privilege after prayers, and before the House has taken up the Orders of the Day. Only in very aggravated cases, requiring the immediate interposition of the House, will any business be suddenly interrupted.
The complaint of the hon. Member may or may not be well founded. But I would suggest to him that if there is a question of privilege, which I doubt, but about which I do not feel at this time I should be called upon to make a ruling, this matter should be raised at the proper time. That would be Monday, before the orders of the day.


Harold Edward Winch: Of course I always bow to the Speaker's ruling, but may I say that if there was ever an aggravated case of insulting the House of Commons, the Prime Minister and the Government, this surely is it.


HOUSING
John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: the second reading of Bill No. S-8, to amend the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into Committee thereon Mr. Lamoureux in the Chair.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
On clause 1.
Erik Nielsen: Perhaps the Minister would make a brief explanation on clause 1.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: This Bill was passed in the other place on May 27 after full and careful consideration by the Committee on Banking and Commerce. A transcript of the proceedings before that Committee is available and some hon. Members have seen it. I understand the hon. Member for Yukon has had an opportunity of perusing it.
Briefly, the bill provides for the appointment of two additional Vice Presidents of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, the Corporation or agency charged with the administration of the National Housing Act. The work of the Corporation over the 20 years
June 18, 1965

that it has been in existence has expanded to such an extent that the appointment of these two additional officers, both in the opinion of the directors of the Corporation and in my opinion as the responsible Minister, is overdue and I hope that this Committee will give speedy consideration to the legislation which permit the appointment of these two additional Vice Presidents.
I might say that the principal functions of the Corporation today fall into three categories-lending and mortgage operations, urban development and public housing, and administration and finance. Each of these categories demands top level direction. 1 would hope that this committee, in view of the very careful consideration given this bill in the other place, would see fit to approve of the speedy passage of this legislation.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, certainly this party wishes to expedite passage of this legis-tion. I have had an opportunity of carefully reading the proceedings in the other place and most of the questions which could have been asked were answered by the Minister before the Committee of the other place. However, he might give the Committee his assurance that Mr. Hignett, the present President of the Corporation, will be continued as President and that there is no intention of disturbing that position. He might also inform us, if he can, what the intended salaries are for the two additional Vice Presidents; and perhaps he would tell us whether or not the Corporation has made any recommendations, to his knowledge, as to the individuals who will be recommended for appointment to these two additional positions.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: It is certainly the intention to continue Mr. Hignett as President. He was appointed last year, on the death of Mr. Stewart Bates for the term of seven years; he has nearly six years to go. At the same time as Mr. Hignett was appointed one of the senior executive directors, Mr. Jean Lupien, was appointed as Vice President-the only Vice President-at that time. His term has still approximately six years to go.
As far as salaries are concerned it would have been infra dig or quite improper for the board to consider salaries until Parliament has acted in this matter. Under the Act and the proposed amendment, the salaries will be fixed by the board of the Corporation, subject to approval by the Government.
I can state that the present salary of the President of the Corporation is $25,000. The 22620-169
Central Mortgage and Housing Act salary of the only Vice President is something less than that. As mentioned these two men will continue as the two senior executives of the Corporation. This gives some idea of the ceiling on what might be expected to be the salary of the new Vice Presidents; it will be in the range of $21,000 to $25,000. That is only an estimate; the Board of Directors have to make a recommendation to the Government.


Erik Nielsen: As indicated in the proceedings the salaries of the two Vice Presidents who are going to be added by this legislation will be somewhat less than the existing Vice President. Could the Minister answer the last part of my series of questions, namely whether or not, to his knowledge, there have been any recommendations made with respect to the personnel who are to fill the two new posts. Perhaps he cannot answer that but he might give the Committee the assurance that the Corporation will select these gentlemen from within the Corporation.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: In answer to the question which has been put, no such recommendations have been made to me. When the President and the other representatives on the Board came to see me they informed me that they do have men of the calibre required within the organization, who would no doubt be considered for these posts.


Mr. Rapp:: I take it these two additional Vice Presidents will not be appointed from certain regions but from the Corporation itself?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: They will be working executives of the Corporation chosen for their abilities, not for geographic reasons.


Mr. Pepin:: I have two short questions, Mr. Chairman. First, what are to be the functions, in general terms, of the two new Vice Presidents? Second, what are to be the relations between the present Vice President and the new ones?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Under the amending bill now before the Committee for consideration the present Vice President, who was appointed to the Board of Directors by the Board with the approval of the Government, will continue as the only Vice President on the Board. His salary, as has already been intimated in the Committee of the other place, will be higher than that of the two new Vice Presidents, who I hope will soon be appointed.
June 18. 1965

Central Mortgage and Housing Act
We are fortunate in having as the sole Vice President at the present time a man of outstanding ability whose background is in the lending and mortgage field. It is hoped that he will continue to discharge those responsibilities, but at the same time in the absence of the President he would be the chief executive officer and perform the functions of President.
With regard to the other two Vice Presidents it is proposed, subject of course to what the Board may do and they may change their ideas on this-that one of them should be the senior officer and assume executive responsibility for urban development and public housing. Second Vice President who would be appointed would be in charge of the administration and finance branch.


Mr. Herridge:: I have one question to ask the Minister. In view of the appointment of two Vice Presidents, does this mean that it will now be possible for senior officials like the President or the Vice Presidents to travel a little more across the country and become acquainted with actual conditions? I represent a district in which tremendous things are going on at the present time which require the particular study of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Would senior officers have an opportunity to see such developments?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: That is one of their probable functions. Another factor which influenced me in making the recommendations to the Government which have been incorporated in this bill is that you now have in these important fields of urban renewal and public housing the necessity for sending a senior executive out across the country to speak for the Corporation. It was hoped that the three Vice Presidents, in whatever field their duties might fall, might be able to act as spokesmen for the Corporation in their respective fields, as suggested by the hon. Member.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Just one question. There are to be three Vice Presidents. From a reading of the Act am I correct in assuming that one of them, the present one, is appointed by the Governor in Council, but that the other two are named by the Board of Directors?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: They are to be appointed by the Board of Directors subject to approval by the Government. The existing Vice President has been designated as Vice President, and if the amending bill passes he will continue as the only Vice President who will be a member of the Board.


[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)


Stanley Howard Knowles: The other two that are to be appointed are not then to be drawn from the other members of the Board of Directors?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: No. I think it likely they will be chosen from among the senior working officials of the corporation.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, while we are discussing the subject of Vice Presidents and their duties, I should like to ask the Minister a question about which I am sure he will be interested in view of some of his other responsibilities. Has any consideration been given to having one of these Vice Presidents appointed from among those individuals who might be willing to take a special interest in the housing problems of the Indian people, and who might be prepared to promote within the Board greater activity and concern in respect of the development of an adequate program for Indian housing?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, wearing two hats as I now am, I should like to be able to give the hon. Member the assurance he is asking for, but housing for Indians is in a different category from housing for other Canadians because of the fact that Indian reserve lands are owned by the Crown and not by individuals. I certainly am interested in improving housing conditions for Indians living on the reserves as band members, as well as for those who live off the reserves. I am afraid that in this particular case the responsibilities to which I have referred are of such a nature that it should be left to the Board of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to make decisions as to the functions of the three Vice Presidents.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, I was simply attempting to make the point that a Vice President with those responsibilities could perhaps wrestle with this problem of land ownership and title as it relates to the availability of housing to which the Minister has referred.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I should like to make one point, Mr. Chairman. In the absence of the President would the present Vice President have full authority in respect of grants?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: It is quite clear in the bill before the Committee that in the absence of the President the present Vice President will be the acting President with full authority.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
June 18, 1965
Clauses 2 to 6 inclusive agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported and read the third time and passed.

Mr. MacNaughl:: Mr. Speaker, before proceeding to private Members' business I should like to have the unanimous consent of the House to consider an estimate of the Department of Labour, being in supplementary estimates (A). There is some urgency about this matter. I have spoken to the House Leaders of the various parties and have been informed that there will be no objection. This will only take two or three minutes to consider.


Stanley Howard Knowles: D'accord.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister explain this item?


John Watson MacNaught: I will make an explanation, yes.

The House in Committee of Supply, Mr. Lamoureux in the Chair.



DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR

[Stage Direction]
8a. Payments In accordance with terms and conditions approved by the Governor in Council under the Winter House Building Incentive Program during the fiscal years 1964-65 and 1965-66 of $500 per dwelling unit substantially built during the period November 15, 1964 to March 31, 1965-To extend to April 15 1965 the termination date of the period referred to in Labour Vote 8b of the Appropriation Act No. 10, 1964; to authorize payments in the current fiscal year of undischarged commitments under Labour Vote 34d of the Appropriation Act No. 5. 1963; and to supplement the said Vote 8b, $2,000,000.
John Watson MacNaught: Mr. Chairman, on March 23 the Minister of Labour announced in the House that the winter works house building incentive program period for construction was being extended to April 15, 1965. In making that announcement he said it was the Government's intention to place before the House a supplementary estimate for the fiscal year 1965-66 to authorize the extension to the program. On May 18 supplementary estimates (A), the ones now under consideration, for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1966, were tabled in the House. These estimates consist solely of an item designed to authorize the extension of the program. In order to make payments on claims on hand and claims that are being received daily in respect of houses 22620-169J
Juvenile Delinquents Act completed during the period from April 1 to April 15, it is important that this supplementary estimate pass as soon as possible.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Carried.


David Vaughan Pugh: Mr. Chairman, I should just like to say that this is most necessary and we all agree with the extension and its purpose.


Mr. Clancy:: Mr. Chairman, I object to this procedure. I think every Member of this House should have a copy of the supplementary estimates. I think they should be tabled in the House and that every Member should have a copy.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, these supplementary estimates for the Department of Labour were distributed to every Member of the House several days ago.
Resolution reported and concurred in.



WAYS AND MEANS

[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee of Ways and Means-Mr. Lamoureux in the Chair.
["Order. The time for the consideration of private Members' business has expired."]
John Watson MacNaught: That toward making good the supply granted to Her Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1966, the sum of $2,000,000 be granted out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. MacNaughl (for Mr. Gordon) thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-122, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for public service for the fiscal year ending the 31st March, 1966.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read first and second times, considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
['That toward making good the supply granted to Her Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1966, the sum of $2,000,000 be granted out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada.\nResolution reported and concurred in.\nMr. MacNaughl (for Mr. Gordon) thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-122, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for public service for the fiscal year ending the 31st March, 1966.']
Stanley Howard Knowles: Five o'clock.


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



Mr. William Dean Howe (Hamilton South) moved: the second reading of Bill No. C-7, to amend the Juvenile Delinquents Act (application to mentally retarded).



June 18. 1965
Juvenile Delinquents Act
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill which I have introduced is to confer upon the mentally retarded the protection of the Juvenile Delinquents Act. The philosophy of that Act is now expressed in section 3, subsection 2, which states:
Where a child is adjudged to have committed a delinquency he shall be dealt with, not as an offender, but as one in a condition of deliquency and therefore requiring help and guidance and proper supervision.
This is more fully expressed in section 38 which reads as follows:
This Act shall be liberally construed to the end that its purpose may be carried out, namely, that the care and custody and discipline of a juvenile delinquent shall approximate as nearly as may be that which should be given by its parents, and that as far as practicable every juvenile delinquent shall be treated, not as a criminal, but as a misdirected and misguided child, and one needing aid, encouragement, help and assistance.
In section 2, subsection 1, "child" is defined as meaning "any boy or girl apparently or actually under the age of 16 years, or such other age as may be directed in any province pursuant to subsection 2". The operative word here is "apparently". Our legal processes rest upon the comprehension of the accused of the nature of his crime and of the court proceedings subsequent to it. Chronological age is of no consequence if an accused is mentally defective and unable to comprehend. Therefore in my amendment chronological age and mental age are taken into account in the definition of the word "child".
Section 12 of the Criminal Code states:
No person shall be convicted of an offence in respect of an act or omission on his part while he was under the age of seven years.
Section 13 provides as follows:
No person shall be convicted of an offence in respect of an act or omission on his part while he was seven years of age or more, but under the age of fourteen years, unless he was competent to know the nature and consequences of his conduct and to appreciate that it was wrong.
While mental retardates within these mental age limits cannot be regarded exactly as children of these chronological ages, it is still true that their comprehension is not such that they should be treated as adult criminals. It is within the philosophy of the Juvenile Delinquents Act to accord them the privileges of that Act. They should not, for their own good as well as for the good of the community, be exposed to the usual public and trial processes of the criminal courts. Even if they are adjudged offenders, they can neither comprehend nor benefit from the kind of punishment usually given an adult offender.

Under the Canadian law at present an insane or mentally defective offender may be detained in a place of safekeeping under an order of the Lieutenant Governor of a province and never be brought to trial. This is contained in section 527 of the Criminal Code. I do not believe that such a situation should be allowed to exist, but that is not the point at issue today. The point is that a mentally retarded person can be arrested and charged and be subjected to full publicity. He can be incarcerated for years or for a lifetime with no trial, and he and his family continue to bear the stigma of an unproven crime. This is not permitted to occur in juvenile offences and it should not occur in offences by retardates.
All of us are aware of cases in which the present laws inflict grave hardship. A recent case in Canada involved a man of 25 charged with a criminal offence. His mental age was six years. It was obvious that he did not understand the nature of the crime and certainly did not understand the criminal proceedings brought against him. In addition, he was not even capable of committing the crime. Even so, this case received full publicity at the time, with its attendant hardships upon the family of the accused.
I should like to refer to a statement by Mr. Justice Thompson of the Ontario Supreme Court in which he said that everyone charged with a crime must, as a matter of constitutional right, be capable of understanding the nature of the proceedings and comprehending their course, must be able to plead and properly instruct counsel and be able to make proper and full answer and defence. Children cannot do this. Neither can mental retardates. They should not be charged and prosecuted publicly any more than children should. They are not insane adults; they are retarded adults and they should be given the same legal protection as children. They should enjoy the legal privileges conferred under the Juvenile Delinquents Act, and I urge all hon. Members to give this matter their serious consideration.


Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to take part in the debate on Bill No. C-7 having to do with mentally retarded persons and the application to them of the Juvenile Delinquents Act. The bill introduced by the hon. Member for Hamilton South (Mr. Howe) proposes to include mentally retarded persons who have a mental age of under 16
June 18. 1965
years or under 18 years according to the discretion of the Governor in Council. The bill also proposes to extend the Act to include the concept of mental age in addition to the factor of chronological age.
In this matter, as in all other matters which involve the social and medical sciences, I think we should take into consideration the whole problem in the light of its historical and present development. The mentally retarded do present difficulties not only in our society endeavouring to obtain social justice for all but, in particular, when trying to apply the laws relating to criminal procedures and rehabilitation practices. While available statistics place the prevalence of clearly established retardation at 3 per cent of the population, a school age population survey showed that there were as high as 10 per cent who if not clinically mentally deficient are at least on the borderline and require special training in school. May I bring to the attention of the hon. Member a statement made by Dr. Henry Dunn, Professor of Pediatrics in the University of British Columbia, who said that this gigantic problem, numerically as well as socially, is the most important chronic disability of children in Canada today.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
So far as our country is concerned, 3 per cent is the generally accepted estimate of those who are mentally retarded-that is persons who have an I.Q. or intelligence quotient below 75. This would mean that there are in Canada approximately 570,000 mentally retarded persons. This also presents us with the problem of a possible annual increase of 14,000. Statistically, these mentally retarded persons can be divided into three groups. First, there are the mildly retarded, those with intelligence quotients of 50 to 75, who are placed in the educatable class. Second, there are the mildly retarded, those with I.Q.'s of 29 to 49 who are considered trainable; and third, the severely retarded, those with I.Q.'s of 0 to 24 who are so severely handicapped that they usually spend the major part of their lives in institutions.
It is true that there are slightly different classifications of the mentally retarded, such as the ones set up by the World Health Organization, according to international statistical classifications and standards. Such minor discrepancies, however, and the dif-
Juvenile Delinquents Act
Now, I draw to the attention of the hon. Member for Hamilton South (Mr. Howe) that his statement to the effect that science and technology enable us to define the mental age of a person in terms of equivalent chronological age, is rather an over-simplification. I could quote many references which would indicate, first, that mental retardation is not a singular medical or mental entity but is a multi-faceted phenomenon with many presumptive causes and a wide variety of manifestations. Second, the adequate classification of children or adults as mentally retarded persons cannot be simply accomplished by the routine application of standardized intelligence tests, but entails numerous other assessments and evaluations of a social, medical and psychological kind. Third, that notwithstanding the technical validity of measuring intelligence in terms of mental age, the assumption that an adult is like or can be treated like a child of comparable intelligence is, on various physiological and psychological grounds, untenable.
May I quote from Dr. Dunner Dybwad, Director Mental Retardation Project, International Union for Child Welfare, Geneva, Switzerland. He stated recently that as one reads about and sees in various countries the tremendous advances being made in the social and vocational habilitation of the adolescent and adult retardates, one notes the extent to which objective social conditions produce in some of these individuals problems which are clearly within the field of adult psychiatry, but for which most adult clinics are as yet not prepared to offer supporting and therapeutic services. He continued by saying that the great social and educational advances in mental retardation made during the past ten years in North America, in Europe, Australia and Japan, might well be summarized in the statement that we have conclusively disproven the old myth that the mentally retarded are "eternal children". As countries throughout the world are now mobilizing a major interdisciplinary and interagency attack on mental retardation, the contribution of psychiatry, along with pediatrics and other medical specialties and those of education, rehabilitation and social work, must be increasingly clarified and translated into functioning programs.
The purpose, Mr. Speaker, of the existing .	Juvenile Delinquency Act is primarily to
ferent views on this subject by eminent psy- assist delinquent children and adolescents chiatrists, add to the difficulties in dealing with their social adjustments through the with this subject.	proper program of rehabilitation. This re-

2652	COMMONS
Juvenile Delinquents Act habilitation depends a great deal upon guidance and efforts of mental health specialists as well as psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers and also on the joint efforts of educators and criminologists. Assistance to the parental homes, foster homes and the special programs in the reform institutions are included in such efforts. The basic assumption in this field is that the delinquent individuals are amenable to rehabilitation and all such efforts would eventually repay the community for the expenditure of money and professional resources. The mentally ill and mentally defective individuals usually require specialized care different from the typical management of juvenile delinquents. Mentally ill children and adolescents are cared for by psychiatric services on the outpatient basis or in a special institution. Similar programs are developing in Canada in highly specialized care of the mentally defective such as, for instance, at the London, Ontario, Institute for Studies in Mental Deficiencies. Mixing together the three groups of juvenile delinquents, namely mentally ill children, adolescents, and mentally defectives would obviously impair efficient functioning of any of such programs.
Other critics rightly charge that intelligence tests leave untouched many important aspects of personality like interests, motives, attitudes, or social adaptability. One must, however, recall that these tests do not pretend to measure personality. In fact, no one test ever has been devised, and perhaps never will be devised, that measures all aspects of personality. The best procedure, when a complete personality picture is desired, is to make a case study of an individual's background and experience, and to supplement it with a variety of tests, not only those measuring intelligence but also those measuring special aptitudes, achievements, interests, attitudes and other phases of personality.
Many persons were shocked when Terman announced that the average adult intelligence is equal to that of a 16 years old. Even more shocking was the fact that Army Alpha tests placed the level at 14 years. People forget that psychologists define intelligence as capacity to learn, adaptability and mental alertness. In the tests, knowledge, information and experience are kept at a minimum, though these factors are bound to affect performance.
Fortunately, the I.Q. fad which raged during the 1920's and saw the term applied indiscriminately has declined. Intelligence tests
[Mr. Haidasz.l
DEBATES	June 18, 1965
are seen today in wiser perspective. What they can tell and what they cannot tell about a person's capacities are well recognized. They do one thing, that is, indicate mental alertness and learning ability. They do not take into account personality, special aptitudes and achievements, social adjustments, or many other factors that make for success or failure in life.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
Therefore, it is open to question whether the presently applied technique of measuring mental deficiency by comparing the development of the defectives to normal development of an average child, is a precise scientific procedure. In simple terms, we recognize the steps of gradual development of intelligence of a so-called average child and compare to such a scale the intelligence displayed by mentally defectives in the so-called intelligence tests. Such an achieved level we call therefore mental age. By that token, while the average child with the chronological age of 12 is expected to pass the intelligence tests for the mental age of 12, a defective individual may reach the same mental age level in the tests while his chronological age may be 14, 16 or 20, depending on the degree of his deficiency. The expression of intelligence in terms of intelligence quotient, or I.Q., is obtained simply by dividing mental age by chronological age, and multiplied by 100 for convenience. The use of I.Q. is a convenient way for comparing various degrees of mental deficiency. At the same time, Dr. Victor Szyrynski, Professor of Psychiatry at the University of Ottawa, reminds us that the amount of intelligence as measured by the intelligence tests remains basically unchanged throughout the lifetime of an individual. We may see practically that when for instance an individual demonstrates at the chronological age of 16 the mental age of 11, this mental age would remain more or less constant for the remaining years of his life, and when he is 30, 40 or 60, his mental age will still be that of an 11 year old individual. Should such an individual benefit indefinitely from provisions of Bill C-7? I see no logical reason for treating a 40, 60 or 80 year old individual accused of criminal offence in juvenile court because his mental age is below 16.
The paradox of this logic becomes even more obvious if we consider children with superior intelligence. Would a 12 year old child with an I.Q. of 150, which gives him a mental age of 18, be considered outside the jurisdiction of a juvenile court?
June 18. 1965

Although the above-described method of measuring intelligence has been of some practical value, it is well known that intelligence tests have serious limitations. Professor Wechsler, one of the most outstanding American authorities on intelligence measurement says:
Most psychologists are aware of the fact that when an adult of 30 years scores a mental age of 12 and a child of 12 scores a mental age of 12 their intelligence is not identical; yet there does not seem to be any general understanding as to why they are not identical. If what we have said above is correct, the answer is not hard to find. The basic reason a mental age of 12 at 12 years does not mean the same things as mental age of 12 at 30 years is that the measured abilities, and hence the mental age scores, represent different portions of the subjects' respective total intelligence. At age 12, the tests are capable of tapping far more of the individual's capacities than at 30.
In a similar way, Professor Coleman in the recent edition of his book "Abnormal Psychology" published in 1964 states:
There has been much criticism of the practice of making diagnosis and/or commitments on the basis of I.Q. alone. For one thing, it is extremely difficult in many cases to make an accurate assessment of intellectual level. This is particularly true in the case of brain-damaged children. Often these children possess genuine ability but have difficulty in making adequate responses because of spasticity, athetosis, defective hearing or vision or other impairments. Even more important, the criterion of adaptive behavior is not revealed in an I.Q.- particularly in the case of individuals with only mild or moderate retardation. Some people with I.Q.s in the low 50s or 60s can support themselves and get along creditably in the community. This is particularly true of those who have received the advantages of training in state or private schools. Consequently, even when an individual's I.Q. is as low as 50, he may or may not need custodial care, depending on the level of his emotional, vocational, and social adjustments. Certainly, when an individual's I.Q. is in the 60s and he is making an adequate adjustment in the community there seems little point in labelling him as a mental retardate.
The situation becomes even more complex when we remember that intelligence measurement depends very largely on co-operation of the subject. It is also well known to psychiatrists and psychologists that results of intelligence tests under emotional stress are not very reliable. Still more, the proper results depend on the motivation of the subject to do his very best during testing. Though it is practically impossible to fake a higher intelligence than one actually possesses, there is nothing easier than to meet the tests with an indifferent, negativistic or malingering attitude in order to provide onself with the low range of mental deficiency. When an individual in trouble with the law realizes that he could change the aspect of legal pro-
Juvenile Delinquents Act cedures by displaying a dull attitude on testing, there would hardly be any objective way to measure his intelligence without going through his school or clinical files where his intelligence may, or may not, be recorded.
Furthermore, judging intelligence from the general behaviour of the individual and from clinical observations is notoriously subject to gross errors. There are mental defectives with unusually appealing "intelligent" expressions on their faces while not infrequently dull and primitive looking individuals may be endowed with supernormal intellectual brightness.
While in some cases mental deficiency and delinquency appear together, the current views are contrary to linking them in a causative relationship. There is an interesting study in the field, an article by Mr. Shulman in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 1951. It can be found at page 763-
The Aciing Speaker (Mr. Batten): Order. I must advise the hon. Member that his time has expired.


Stanley Haidasz: If I might have the indulgence of the House to continue for a few moments I would make one or two further points and then sit down.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Haidasz: May I add also that the psychological mechanisms operating in juvenile delinquency may be different from those which would bring mentally defectives in conflict with the law. This distinction is well demonstrated by Cyril Burt in his classical work "The Young Delinquent". On the other hand, in rehabilitation of the nondefective delinquents, we should take into account various psychodynamic situations not always applicable to the mentally defective population.
In conclusion I might emphasize that this rapid development of rehabilitation programs of juvenile deliquency merit all necessary attention. Still more, the preventive programs in the field of community mental health should be aimed at diminishing the occurence of delinquency.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
Our mentally defective and mentally ill individuals merit all the necessary care and assistance which medical science makes available. Such efforts are in evidence throughout
June 18. 1865

Juvenile Delinquents Act Canada, and especially in the Province of Ontario where a special study is being made by Barry Swadron, a Toronto lawyer, who has been asked by the Minister of Health to conduct a two-year study of mental health and mental illness legislation in Canada.
Finally, may I add, Mr. Speaker, that Bill No. C-7 is premature and that further studies should be made in this field before we pass a bill such as this.


Mr. D. S. Macdonald (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member for Hamilton South (Mr. Howe) has brought before the House a problem that is connected with that uneasy no man's land between the profession of law and the profession of medicine. Somebody remarked in the past that what was formerly a co-operative endeavour between the two professions has perhaps in recent years become almost a field of conflict. While the measure the hon. Member has put before the House today is perhaps not the best method of achieving the objective which he has in mind, I do not think anyone can question the soundness of his motives in bringing this particular matter before the House. He has indeed put his finger on an inadequacy in the law, an inadequacy in the sense that the mentally retarded person is not in the same situation medically as others, and even to a layman such as myself he is not in the same situation as those who are commonly treated as mentally incompetents under the Criminal Code. I think the changing attitude of our society and many other societies toward people of retarded mentality may in large measure be due to the very earnest efforts of retarded children's organizations over the past ten or more years, which have done their best to bring about in our society a better understanding of the problem of mental retardation. The efforts of these particular groups are not by any means spent, nor have they ceased to be necessary. They have at least achieved a certain success down the road to the ultimate objective whereby the person of mental retardation, and more particularly the mentally retarded child, will no longer be the object of derision, shame or even in some cases, fear, in our society. They have brought to society a recognition of the problem of mental retardation. They have brought this problem into the daylight and have created a concern generally that it should be recognized and dealt with out in the open. By way of aside, perhaps, I may say that no other family and no other group of individuals can take greater credit

for this than the Kennedy family, whose interest in the problem arose from their own experience.
The difficulties of a person with retarded mental faculties are probably no more acute than when he is faced with the law of the land, and more particularly the criminal law; for the law has created a set of standards and procedures which it is assumed an adult person of average intelligence can comprehend in substance and can govern himself accordingly; that is, can comprehend in substance if not in technical detail. However, in the case of a person with retarded mentality, that assumption cannot be made. Problems of procedure, of treatment of the crime, of custody and of ultimate responsibility arise; problems which I may say are analogous to but are not identical with those which arise in dealing with children before the courts. I say they are analogous but not identical, Mr. Speaker, because the fully-grown, chronologically aged person is obviously different from a person of tender years, as has been so well pointed out by my hon. friend and colleague the Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Haidasz).
The Juvenile Delinquents Act, which is the measure the hon. Member proposes to amend, was conceived entirely in the context of those of tender years. As the Parliamentary Secretary has already pointed out, it has created a series of measures and a regime of law which, while appropriate to younger persons is, in my submission, inappropriate to the problems, of adults of retarded mentality. I think perhaps the best way to illustrate the problems which I see arising from the shortcomings of the proposed measure would be to make reference to the actual terms of the Act. First there is the question of definitions. Section 2(l)(a) says:
"child" means any boy or girl apparently or actually under the age of 16 years, or such other age as may be directed in any province pursuant to subsection (2);
Subsection (2) of the same section authorizes the Governor in Council by proclamation to-
-direct that in any province the expression "child" in this Act means any boy or girl apparently or actually under the age of 18 years-
In fact in five provinces in Canada the age for the purposes of this Statute is as follows: In Saskatchewan, Ontario, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island the age has been established to be 16. In the Provinces of British Columbia, Manitoba and Quebec a proclamation has been made under
June 18, 1965	COMMONS
the Statute establishing the age limit at 18. In the Province of Alberta the age limit has been established at the level of 18 for girls and 16 for boys. In the Province of Newfoundland the provincial laws, so I am advised, under the Terms of Union still continue to govern the situation and have set the age at 17, the Juvenile Delinquents Act not having been proclaimed in respect of that Province.
The Statute, therefore, is very obviously intended for those of tender years. I would agree with the hon. Member for Parkdale who has pointed out that, for example, the intelligence test used to determine the mental age of children can be very deceptive and is obviously dependant upon a great many complicated factors. The choice of a chronological age is no more accurate or scientific than the choice of age by means of an intelligence test, but the choice of the chronological age does indicate the difficulties which legislatures have had in the past in providing a criterion and a dividing point which those responsible for the administration of the law may readily apply with some certainty of administering justice. Section 4 of the Statute provides:
Save as provided in section 9. the Juvenile Court has exclusive jurisdiction in cases of delinquency Including cases where, after the committing of the delinquency, the child has passed the age limit-
-to which I have already referred. This means that the ordinary courts of the land, depending upon the nature of the offence-the Magistrate's Court, the County Court, for example, in the Province of Ontario, or the High Court of Justice-do not have the jurisdiction at all over someone fitting within the criteria of the Statute. That jurisdiction has been removed altogether and has been put into the Juvenile Courts. The effect of these provisions and the difficulty of their application may be further illustrated by referring to section 8(1) which provides as follows:
When any child is arrested, with or without a warrant, such child shall, instead of being taken before a justice, be taken before the Juvenile Court: and, if a child is taken before a justice, upon a summons or under a warrant or for any other reason, it is the duty of the justice to transfer the case to the Juvenile Court, and of the officer having the child in charge to take the child before that Court, and in any such case the Juvenile Court shall hear and dispose of the case in the same manner as if such child had been brought before it upon information originally laid therein.
What is clear, therefore, is that there is an absolute obligation on the police and the prosecuting authorities to determine the age of the child with reference to this particular
DEBATES	2655
Juvenile Delinquents Act Statute, and when the determination is made in the particular Province, whether it be 16, 17 or 18, if the child is below that age there is an obligation upon the authorities to bring the child before the Juvenile Court. As a matter of law, any proceedings taken in the ordinary criminal courts in relation to such child would therefore be null and void.
Therefore there is an obvious importance initially in the fact that the police and the prosecuting authorities should be able to make the determination as to whether or not a child comes within the Statute.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
There is also an obvious initial difficulty for an arresting officer in the case proposed by the hon. Member for Hamilton South (Mr. Howe), for what he is requiring the policeman or Crown Prosecutor to do is to make a determination as a layman of a very difficult technical question, a question on which in the case of a particular issue qualified medical practitioners may differ.
As the Parliamentary Secretary has already pointed out, there is no final and obvious criterion for deciding this question of mental age. He also pointed out that he would take issue with the suggestion made in the explanatory note that this is readily determinable. If there is difficulty in determining this question for qualified medical practitioners, then I suggest the difficulty is even greater when the initial determination is made by an arresting officer. Therefore the bill places on the police and the prosecuting authorities the obligation of making a scientific judgment.
The difficulty of such a judgment in relation to matters of law is illustrated, I think, by a passage I would like to refer the House to in a monograph called "Psychiatry and the Law", by Manfred S. Guttmacher, Chief Medical Officer of the Supreme Bench of Baltimore, and Henry Weihofen, Professor of Law at the University of New Mexico. I refer to chapter 8 of this book which deals with congenital intellectual deficiency, which is the definition with which the learned authors choose to describe the situation which I believe the hon. Member has in mind. At page 171 they say:
The fact that we have instruments for the measurement of intelligence has created the false impression that we now know what it is we are measuring and that we can measure it exactly. Even some workers in the psychological sciences fall into this error. The medical author some years ago observed an extreme example of this when he was guest lecturer in a college course on abnormal psychology. The professor in charge of the course advised the students not to be content with the
June 18. 1965

Juvenile Delinquents Act usual method of computing the I.Q., hut to he more exact and make use of decimals 1
It is highly desirable that lawyers and judges have a functional and realistic view of intelligence. In deciding whether a person with defective intelligence has sufficient capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of his act, it is necessary to take into consideration whether the act is perpetrating a fraud or committing a murder. Doubtless many persons with somewhat defective intelligence are incapable of appreciating some of the intricacies of the law of fraud, and yet are fully aware of the enormity of homicide.
In the same work at page 174 the following is found:
Most of the intellectually defective individuals do not have marked physical abnormalities. Many of them have a wholly normal physical appearance. The people who pride themselves on their ability to judge intelligence and character by appearances had better not put their judgment to objective scientific test or they will be greatly disappointed. But many rely heavily on physical appearance in reaching their conclusions.
From the particular text to which I have referred, Mr. Speaker, and from the remarks made by the hon. Member for Parkdale (Mr. Haidasz), it is obvious that the kind of criteria which are necessary for the police authorities and the courts to make this initial determination on these questions are just not present in the case of mental age. One of the shortcomings of this particular proposed piece of legislation is that it provides no standard or basis upon which mental age is to be determined. It provides no procedure whereby initially the opinion of qualified medical practitioners is to be taken to determine whether or not the court has jurisdiction and that the proper proceedings have been taken. Indeed, by treating the person of advanced years but of retarded mentality in the same way as juvenile delinquents without providing the appropriate administration to deal with such a person would only risk upsetting the arrangements which have been made, perhaps not altogether satisfactorily but with some success, with regard to juvenile delinquents.
This may be illustrated by making reference to the Statute itself. There is the fact that under the Juvenile Delinquents Act a delinquent is not to be detained in normal circumstances with other adult persons but is to be kept with persons of tender years. In applying the Juvenile Delinquents Act to the case of a person of advanced years but who is mentally retarded, it has already been pointed out that a grown man is not to be treated in the same way as a small child, because he is not the same type of person. Similarly section 23 of the Statute refers to

the responsibilities of the Children's Aid Society and particularly to foster homes into whose custody and under whose control the objects of the Juvenile Delinquents Act are to be kept before and after they attend their trial. I think all hon. Members will agree that it is obviously inappropriate to put under the care of the Children's Aid Society, when dealing with what is a distinct medical problem, the social and practical problem of a grown person who is mentally retarded.
The substance of my objections, therefore, would be that, agreeing as I do with the ultimate objectives of the hon. Member in introducing the measure, agreeing as I do that someone who is shown to be mentally retarded should not be treated in the same way under our law as someone who is entirely mentally defective, I do not feel it is appropriate to treat this type of mentally retarded person under the provisions of the Juvenile Delinquents Act. That statute was, as I have indicated, prepared with a distinct factual situation in mind. It was prepared with organizations such as juvenile institutions, Children's Aid Societies, foster homes and probation officers in mind. It would be altogether inappropriate to add to the provisions of that measure responsibility for dealing with what is an entirely different practical and medical problem, that of the person of advanced years who is mentally retarded.
I believe it is six o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. The time for the consideration of private Members' business has expired.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

John Watson MacNaught: Mr. Speaker, on Monday the House will be asked to consider the third reading of the Bill to amend the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act; the resolution respecting the Indian Claims Commission; the resolution authorizing the Canadian National Railways to construct a line of railway near Sarnia; item No. 37 on today's order paper, second reading of Bill No. C-119, an Act to amend the Customs Act; and second reading of the Customs Tariff Act. The House will also be asked to consider items 18 and 17 on today's order paper, namely the resolution to amend the Research Council Act and the resolution to establish a Science Council of Canada.
I should also announce that on Tuesday the House will be asked to consider item No.
June 18, 1965	COMMONS
36 on today's order paper, the Act to amend the Income Tax Act and the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act.


Mr. Churchill:: May I just ask one question. Is the Minister not now adding items to the list the Prime Minister gave us? It seems to me he has added three to the list the Prime Minister gave us just the other day.


John Watson MacNaught: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of that. I think these were included in the Prime Minister's list.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, in view of the change from a Supply motion on Monday, may I ask whether the Minister can announce what consideration is now being given, as a matter of Government policy, to how the House of Commons will discuss the matter of the constitutional change requested by Quebec, in view of the fact that the Acting Prime Minister said this matter would be brought before the House of Commons before anything is sent to Her Majesty the Queen.
DEBATES	2657
Supply-Item Passed
a (6:00 p.m.)


John Watson MacNaught: Mr. Speaker, I feel reasonably sure that there will be a Supply motion before the House rises for a summer recess.
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[The following Item was passed in committee of supply this day:]



DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR

[Stage Direction]
8a. Payments in accordance with terms and conditions approved by the Governor in Council under the Winter House Building Incentive Program during the fiscal years 1964-65 and 1965-66 of $500 per dwelling unit substantially built during the period November 15, 1964 to March 31, 1965- To extend to April 15. 1965 the termination date of the period referred to in Labour Vote 8b of the Appropriation Act No. 10, 1964; to authorize payments in the current fiscal year of undischarged commitments under Labour Vote 34d of the Appropriation Act No. 5, 1963; and to supplement the said Vote 8b, $2,000,000.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, June 21, 1965