1967-06-26

Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, with the indulgence of the house I would like to make a statement and, if agreeable, propose a subsequent order which would have the effect of bringing the work of this part of the session to an orderly close_ and imbed the understandings that have been reached into such an order of the house.
On Friday last the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) and the hon. members for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill), Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and Ro-berval (Mr. Gauthier) had some discussions which formed the basis of the agreement which I am proposing to the house today. Earlier the opposition house leader and I had discussions along similar lines.
The proposal is as follows: Today we would like to enter all remaining departments, three in number, into the committee of supply without debate. We would provide in the order that the three remaining supply motions be utilized in the resumed part of the session in the fall. In addition, on Thursday of next week we would like to ask for interim supply for a period of four months, and to pass at that time ten departments and the supply bill resulting from the passing of these departments.
With that program in mind we would hope to adjourn the house on Friday, July 7, unless it were necessary to remain for the following day to secure royal assent. If it is not, we will conclude this part of the session on that Friday.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
In addition I would also propose that the house not sit on Monday, July 3. As it stands now there is no provision for a house holiday on that day, and in order to alter that fact we need a special order of the house. There have been discussions with the representatives of all parties and agreement has been reached. I should like, with the consent of the house, 27053-122J
to move a motion that would carry these understandings into effect and become an order of the house. I move:
That, notwithstanding the provisions of any standing or provisional order of this house, it is ordered:
(1)	That the order for "House again in committee of supply" shall stand as the first item of government business in this sitting for the purpose of moving "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair" and, when it be proposed, the said motion shall be decided forthwith without debate or amendment; and
(2) That when the house resolves itself into committee of supply pursuant to the adoption of the said motion, the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1968, of all departments now outstanding shall be forthwith first taken up and entered for consideration in the committee of supply; and
(3)	That following the proposed summer adjournment there shall be three occasions on which an order for house in committee of supply shall be called for the purpose of moving "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair"; provided that the first of the said three orders shall be called not later than the fifteenth sitting day. the second not later than the thirtieth sitting day, and the third not later than the forty fifth sitting day following the resumption of the sittings of the house next autumn: and
(4)	That the operation of paragraph 3 of this order shall not in any way preclude the adoption of all items in the committee of supply and the enactment of supply bills based thereon within the thirty day period prescribed therefor in subparagraph 5 (c) of the resolution adopted April 26, 1967; and
(5) That on Thursday, July 6, 1967, at 9:30 o'clock p.m., the proceedings of the house or the committee of supply or ways and means, as the case may be, shall be interrupted, and every question shall successively be put forthwith that may be necessary to dispose of the estimates of ten departments and any resolution or bill based thereon, and also such resolutions and bills as are necessary to provide for a four month interim supply; and
(6)	That debate on any of the said three motions referred to in paragraph 3 shall not exceed two sitting days, and that in each case the main motion and any amendments proposed thereto shall be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of sections 2 and 4 of standing order 56.
(7)	That any time or days used in the fulfilment of the terms of this order shall be part of the over-all limitation of time allotted to the consideration of the business of supply in this session.
(8)	That when the house rises on Friday, June 30, 1967, it shall stand adjourned until 2:30 p.m. Tuesday, July 4, 1967.

June 26, 1967
Questions
This motion I am moving, Mr. Speaker, is seconded by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill). In making this proposal to the house I wish to express my appreciation to the Minister of Transport and the representatives of all parties in the house for reaching an agreement which provides for what I regard as an orderly and responsible way of concluding this part of the session.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: May I
ask why the arrangement could not be made in such a manner that the session would end on June 30 and the extra week we are sitting in July be provided by returning a week earlier? There would be no difference in the time allotted for a holiday or for the business of the house. It would seem there would be as much advantage to all hon. members to have the opportunity to be home in July and return a week earlier in the fall.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, this was a possibility that was considered. We felt that the provision of the Monday holiday at the week end would provide hon. members with an opportunity, if they so wished, to go to their ridings. We are also conscious of the fact that Her Majesty will be in Canada and in Ottawa that week and it would be desirable at that time to have the House of Commons of Canada in session.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. Robert Slanbury (York-Scarborough) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-140, to amend the British North America Act, 1867 (appointment of judges).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Mr. Speaker, this bill is a revival of one I introduced in the last session but which was not reached for discussion. It would not interfere with the crown prerogative, but it would require the government before making judicial appointments to obtain the opinion of a committee of the Canadian Bar Association as to the suitability and qualifications of persons under consideration. Such a procedure, I believe, would tend not only to preserve the generally high calibre of our judiciary but would also bolster public

confidence in this vital branch of our democratic system. I hope there will be an opportunity for the justice committee to consider this bill in the fall.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



HISTORIC SITES AND MONUMENTS ACT


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Historic Sites and Monuments Act to provide for membership on the board of an officer of the National Museums of Canada, and to provide also that the remuneration paid to members of the board appointed by the governor in council for attending at meetings or to other business of the board shall be fixed by the governor in council.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

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

Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	Has a prohibition been placed on improvements on cottages located on leasehold property in the national parks located in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta?
2.	If so, was such a prohibitory policy established and for what reasons was it established and how long will it continue?
3.	How will maintenance up to to the high standard required in national parks be carried out?


Arthur Laing: 1. A
prohibition has been placed on significant improvements that structurally alter or extend existing summer cottages.
2.	The measure was taken to stabilize the value and extent of existing summer cottages which is in line with our policy of not permitting the replacement of existing cottages or the granting of new sites and the gradual acquisition of all existing sites.
3.	Normal maintenance and repair of the existing summer cottages is not only permissible but is required as a condition of the lease.
June 26, 1967


LABOUR CODE DEFERMENT APPLICATIONS BY STEVEDORING COMPANIES
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	How many applications of stevedoring and longshoring companies who applied for deferment and for suspension of part 1 of The Canada Labour (Standards) Code, are still under review?
2.	When were these applications made to the department?
3.	How many workers are covered by each of these applications?
4.	What are the reasons for the applications for deferment still being under review by the department?
5.	What is the date when the department expects to have settled all these cases which are under review?


Mr. B. S. Mackasey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: 1. 177.
2.	Applications for deferment were made prior to July 1, 1965. Applications for suspension were made after July 1, 1965.
3.	Information not available.
4.	An inquiry commission has been established under another act to examine and report on certain conditions of employment at ports of Montreal, Trois-Rivieres and Quebec. The working conditions in most Canadian ports are generally similar. The report of the commission should be considered when dealing with the deferment.
5.	Date uncertain, but efforts are being made to settle these cases as soon as possible.


LABOUR CODE DEFERMENT APPLICATIONS BY SHIPPING COMPANIES
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	How many applications of shipping (including ferries) companies who applied for deferment and for suspension of part 1 of The Canada Labour (Standards) Code, are still under review?
2.	When were these applications made to the department?
3.	How many workers are covered by each of these applications?
4.	What are the reasons for the applications for deferment still being under review by the department?
5.	What is the date when the department expects to have settled all these cases which are under review?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: 1. 153.
2.	Applications for deferment were made prior to July 1, 1965. Applications for suspension were made after July 1, 1965.
3.	Information not available.
4.	An inquiry commission has been established to inquire into and report on hours
Questions
of work in navigation and shipping in the Newfoundland area. Discussions are being held with employers and employees affected in other areas of Canada in order to arrive at an accommodation on hours of work.
5.	Date uncertain, but efforts are being made to settle these cases as soon as possible.


LABOUR CODE DEFERMENT APPLICATIONS BY RAILWAY AND HOTEL COMPANIES
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	How many applications of railway and hotel companies who applied for deferment and for suspension of part 1 of The Canada Labour (Standards) Code, are still under review?
2.	When were these applications made to the department?
3.	How many workers are covered by each of these applications?
4.	What are the reasons for the applications for deferment still being under review by the department?
5.	What is the date when the department expects to have settled all these cases which are under review?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: 1. 38.
2.	Applications for deferment were made prior to July 1, 1965. Applications for suspension were made after July 1, 1965.
3.	Information not available.
4.	Discussions are being held with employers and employees affected in order to reach an accommodation on hours of work.
5.	Date uncertain, but efforts are being made to settle these cases as soon as possible.


LABOUR CODE DEFERMENT APPLICATIONS BY MINING AND PROCESSING COMPANIES
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 100
Mr. Orlikow:: 1.	How many applications of mining and processing companies who applied for deferment and for suspension of part 1 of The Canada Labour (Standards) Code, are still under review?
2.	When were these applications made to the department?
3.	How many workers are covered by each of these applications?
4.	What are the reasons for the applications for deferment still being under review by the department?
5.	What is the date when the department expects to have settled all these cases which are under review?


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

June 26. 1967
Questions


LABOUR CODE DEFERMENT APPLICATIONS BY HIGHWAY TRANSPORT COMPANIES
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	How manj' applications of highway transport companies who applied for deferment and for suspension of part 1 of The Canada Labour (Standards) Code, are still under review?
2.	When were these applications made to the department?
3.	How many workers are covered by each of these applications?
4.	What are the reasons for the applications for deferment still being under review by the department?
5.	What is the date when the department expects to have settled all these cases which are under review?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: 1. 2,645.
2.	Applications for deferment were made prior to July 1, 1965. Applications for suspension were made after July 1, 1965.
3.	Information not available.
4.	An inquiry commission has been established to inquire into and report on hours of work in the inter provincial transport of goods by motor vehicle.
5.	Date uncertain, but efforts are being made to settle these cases as soon as possible.


LABOUR CODE DEFERMENT APPLICATIONS BY GRAIN ELEVATOR COMPANIES
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	How many applications of grain elevator companies who applied for deferment and for suspension of part 1 of The Canada Labour (Standards) Code, are still under review?
2.	When were these applications made to the department?
3.	How many workers are covered by each of these applications?
4.	What are the reasons for the applications for deferment still being under review by the department?
5.	What is the date when the department expects to have settled all these cases which are under review?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: 1. One.
2.	August 2, 1965.
3.	111.
4.	Discussions are now being held with a view of settling this application for suspension.
5.	Within one month.


LEVEL CROSSING FUND PAYMENTS
Mr. Allard: In 19SS, for each province, what amounts were paid out of the federal level crossing fund and what were the percentages of these grants?


Mr. J. A. Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: The Board of Transport commissioners for Canada advises as follows:-
Distribution of commitments and expenditures from the railway grade crossing fund
by province-1966
		per cent		per cent
		of Total		of Total
Province	Commitments	Commitments	Expenditures	Expenditures
		from fund		from fund
British Columbia	$ 905,187	3.91	$ 1,188,045	8.09Alberta	624,316	2.70	1,663,256	11.32Saskatchewan	688,572	2.97	809,329	5.51Manitoba	2,534,180	10.95	567,419	3.86Ontario	11,739,876	50.71	7,359,927	50.10Quebec	4,118,473	17.79	2,045,521	13.93New Brunswick	511,544	2.21	274,146	1.87Nova Scotia	338,571	1.46	339,704	2.31Prince Edward Island	60,080	0.26	18,377	0.13Newfoundland	1,415,150	6.11	86,202	0.59Yukon Territory	9,100	0.04	Non Allocated	Reflectorization of	crossing signs	189,055	0.82	315,872	2.15Reflectorization of	railway cars	19,028	0.08	21,577	0.15TOTALS	$23,153,132	100.0%	$14,689,375	100.0%

June 26, 1967

The statement of commitments shows approximately the same ratio as the expenditures for the provinces of Quebec and Ontario.
The board's records indicate that in Ontario there are 8,615 crossings, 35.74 per cent of which are protected. In the province of Quebec there are 3,611 crossings of which 44.67 per cent are protected.


MUNITIONS EXPORTS TO MIDDLE EAST COUNTRIES
Mr. Ormislon: What has been the value of exports of munitions and armaments to Egypt, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Ethiopia, Sudan and Jordan, respectively, from 19S3 to date?


Mr. Jean-Charles Canlin (Parliamentary-Secretary to Minister of Trade and Commerce):: No exports of munitions and military armaments were made from Canada to the named countries from 1963 to the present date, other than for the United Nations emergency force.


CEREMONIES AT BIRTHPLACES OF FORMER PRIME MINISTERS
Mr. Coates: Is it the intention of the government to hold special ceremonies at the various localities throughout Canada where prime ministers of this nation have been born and, if so, what will be the form of the ceremonies in question, on what dates will they be carried out, and has the government been in communication with representatives in these various communities as to the ceremonies in question?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of Stale):: I am informed by the centennial commission there are no plans to conduct special ceremonies at the various localities throughout Canada where prime ministers were born. I am further informed that there are no plans to commemorate birth sites of any prime ministers, and further that such a suggestion has never come under discussion. However, as indicated in reply to question 205, the commission will conduct, in conjunction with the Boy Scouts of Canada, commemorative ceremonies at grave sites of the Fathers of Confederation July 1. According to the program as noted in reply to question 205, 37 ceremonies will be held in 19 cities.
Questions


HARBOUR IMPROVEMENT, SOUTH INGONISH, N.S.
Mr. Muir (Cape Breton: North and Victoria):
1.	Was a survey carried out to determine the need for dredging in the entrance channel at South Ingonish harbour, Victoria county, Nova Scotia and, if so (a) on what date (b) what were the results of the survey?
2.	What are the plans of the government to improve the harbour?


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Minister of Public Works):: 1. Yes, (a) between September 29, 1966 and October 14, 1966. (b) The survey revealed that the channel was filling in along the sides. The minimum width between the 15-foot contours at lowest tides was 55 feet, and between the 6 foot contours the minimum width was 100 feet.
2. It is planned to review the need for redredging the channel to the 15-foot depth over a width of 150 feet, and to consider the inclusion of an item in future estimates.


ACQUISITION OF CITIZENSHIP BY MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT
Mr. Stanbury: Have any members of the present parliament acquired Canadian citizenship since their election and, if so, how many?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: There is no record of any member of the present parliament having applied for or having been granted Canadian citizenship between November 8, 1965, and the present time.


PROVISION OF MOBILE CRANES BY HARBOURS BOARD
Mr. Forreslall: 1.	Does the government through the National Harbours Board provide the ports under its jurisdiction with mobile cranes having a lift capability in excess of 15 tons?
2.	If so, of what lift and reach capacities are they?
3.	Are any of these heavy lift cranes available at the port of Halifax?
4.	If not, for what reason?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: The National Harbours Board advises as follows:
1. No. At Montreal a locomotive crane with a maximum lift of 52,000 pounds and a radius of 17 feet, and a road crane with a maximum lift of 10,000 pounds and a radius of 60 feet are provided, but at other N.H.B. harbours

June 26, 1967
Questions
mobile cranes are available from private business if they are required. N.H.B. provides floating cranes at some harbours.
2.	See answer to part 1.
3.	See answer to part 1.
4.	See answer to part 1.


TELEVISION SERVICE FOR NORTHERN MANITOBA
Mr. Siefanson: Has the C.B.C. any plans for providing television service for the residents of Grand Rapids and Norway House, Manitoba, and adjacent areas and, if so, what are the plans, and when can residents of these areas look forward to having these services available?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed by the C.B.C. that the extension of microwave service to northern Manitoba by the spring of 1969 will make it possible to provide network television to Grand Rapids. The C.B.C. hopes to make application early in 1968 to establish a station there. A separate installation would be required to serve the smaller community of Norway House. This project would be implemented at a later date after priority has been given to unserved areas with larger populations.


BREAKWATER REPAIRS, PARRSBORO, N.S.
Mr. Coates: Has a contract been awarded for repairs to the breakwater at Parrsboro, Nova Scotia and, if so, to whom was the contract awarded and in what amount, and was the successful bidder the low tenderer?


George James McIlraith: No.


FEDERAL BUILDING, PARRSBORO, N.S.
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 250
Mr. Coates:: 1.	Has a decision been reached as to when a new federal building or post office is to be constructed at Parrsboro, Nova Scotia and, if so, on what date does the government plan to call tenders for the construction of same?
2.	Has land been secured as a site for the federal building or post office at Parrsboro, Nova Scotia and, if so, from whom was it purchased and what was the amount paid?


George James McIlraith: 1. The department is giving consideration to the inclusion of an item in future estimates, and the decision as to when the new federal building is to be constructed and tenders are to be called will then be taken.
2. When built, it is the intention to build on the existing site.


SUMMER EMPLOYMENT FOR TROIS-RIVIERES STUDENTS
Mr. Mongrain: How many university students residing in the federal constituency of Trois-Rivieres have already obtained summer employment from the federal government?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed by the Public Service Commission as follows: Four.


PUBLIC WORKS PROJECTS, CHAPLEAU CONSTITUENCY
Mr. Laprise: 1.	What works are being carried out by the Department of Public Works in the constituency of Chapleau, and what is the cost?
2.	What works is the Department of Public Works planning to carry out in the constituency of Chapleau for the year 1967-68, and how much will be spent on each of these projects?


George James McIlraith: 1. Clerval, wharf reconstruction,
$5,145.00; Lac Chicobi, wharf reconstruction, $10,954.00.
2. Lac Fiedmont, wharf reconstruction; Parent, wharf reconstruction; Lac Simon, wharf reconstruction; Rupert House, wharf reconstruction. It is not customary to reveal estimated costs before tenders are called.


CANADIAN METROPOLITAN AREAS
Mr. Lambert: 1.	What criteria are used in establishing the size and density of population of any area in Canada to qualify it as a census metropolitan area (reference catalogue 92-263 bulletin A-3 census of Canada)?
2.	How many such areas are there in Canada, which are they, and what is their respective surface area?


Jean-Charles Cantin: 1. For census purposes, a census
metropolitan area is defined as an urban agglomeration of at least 100,000 persons, of which 50,000 or more live in the central city. Fringe communities to be considered part of the metropolitan agglomeration must be in close geographic, social and economic relationship to the central city.
To determine these relations, such criteria as distance from the central city, the extent of build up areas with a population density of 1,000 persons or more per square mile
June 26. 1967

and the proportion of the labour force in-non-agricultural activities are used.
In a few exceptional cases, where the adjoining municipalities are of an extreme size and contain large tracts of agricultural land, only the urbanized fringes of these municipalities are included.
2. Nineteen census metropolitan areas were defined for the 1966 census of Canada. These and their land areas are as follows:
Census metropolitan areas Surface area
sq. mi.
1.	St. John's, Newfoundland	99.782.	Halifax, Nova Scotia	117.483.	Saint John, New Brunswick	407.354.	Montreal, P.Q.	516.005.	Quebec, P.Q.	160.516.	Hamilton, Ontario	530.697.	Kitchener, Ontario	220.878.	London, Ontario	277.389.	Ottawa, Ontario	335.0210.	Sudbury, Ontario	196.94
Questions
11.	Toronto, Ontario	806.3712.	Windsor, Ontario	117.7713.	Winnipeg, Manitoba	270.4014.	Regina, Saskatchewan	29.2515.	Saskatoon, Saskatchewan	31.2116.	Calgary, Alberta	152.2117.	Edmonton, Alberta	196.2118.	Vancouver, British Columbia	511.7519.	Victoria, British Columbia	107.84


FEDERAL ROYAL COMMISSIONS
Mr. McCleave: 1.	How many royal commissions have been established by the federal government since April 8, 1963?
2.	What was the duration of each?
3.	What has been the cost to date of each such royal commission?


Mr. John R. Matheson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: 1. Sixteen.
2. and 3. Answered as follows:
Name of royal commission	Date of appointment	Date of reporting	Total costBilingualism and Bicul-turalism	July 19/63	Not yet reported	$6,057,053Irregularities in process-Dec. 21/63 ing claims under Prairie Farm Assistance Act	August 1964	17,957*T.C.A. overhaul and maintenance base, Winnipeg, Man.	June 11/64	May 1966	55,340*Crash of T.C.A. Aircraft at Ste. Therese	Oct. 8/64	August 1965	21,038*Export marketing problems of Salt Fish industry-in Atlantic provinces	Oct. 29/64	December 1965	42,116*To inquire into allegations about any improper pressures having been brought to bear on counsel acting upon an application for the extradition of one Lucien Rivard	Nov. 25/64	June 1965	180,053*Irregularities in 1963 federal election B.C.	March 2/65	August 1965	14,107*Inquiry into freshwater fish market	July 9, 1965	October 1966	39,611*Inquiry into Group D. salary increases	July 23/65	September 1965	7,193*Working conditions in Post Office Dept.	September 1/65	October 1966	78,960*Inquiry into Mr. Justice	January 19/66	August 1966	55,831*
1926

June 26, 1967
Orders for Returns
Name of royal commission	Date of appointment	Date of reporting	Total costInquiry into complaints made by one George Victor Spencer	March 7/66	July 1966	13,099*Inquiry into matters relating to one Gerda Mun-singer	March 14/66	September 1966	54,708*Farm machinery costs	May 26/66	Not yet reported	139,680Security	November 16/66	Not yet reported	46,149Status of women in Canada * Final cost	February 16/67	Not yet reported	9,408


LETTER FROM TRAINMEN'S UNION, SYDNEY, N.S.
Mr. Muir (Cape Breton: North and Victoria):
1.	Did the Minister of Transport receive a communication dated May 28, 1967, from the officers and members of lodge 554, Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, at Sydney, Nova Scotia?
2.	If so, what was the nature of the reply provided by the minister?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: 1. Yes.
2. Representation referred to the Board of Transport Commissioners with the request that they consider and report on the matter to the Minister of Transport.


FLYING OF UNION JACK DURING ROYAL VISIT
Mr. Webb: 1.	Is the Union Jack to be flown in Ottawa and Montreal on all official occasions during the visit of Her Majesty the Queen?
2.	If not, for what reason?


Mr. J. B. Stewart (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first part of the question is, "yes". Consequently, the second part of the question is not applicable.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. McCleave: How many students have applied for jobs at Expo from Canadian universities or colleges, and how many were accepted (setting out each institution, its number of applicants and its successful applicants) ?
Return tabled.


TEXTILE IMPORTS
Mr. Allard: To up-date the answer to question No. 1,640 of June 9, 1966, which was tabled July 13, 1966 (a) in 1966, what countries exported textile products to Canada (b) for the year 1966 and for each of the mentioned countries, what are these products and what is the total value of the textile products imported into Canada under textile groups a, b, c, d and e as used in the reply to question No. 1,640?
Return tabled.


LEVEL CROSSINGS, ESQUIMALT AND NANAIMO RAILWAY
Mr. Barnett: 1.	How many level crossings of public highways and streets of the Esquimau and Nanaimo railway are there at which automatic safety warning devices have not been installed?
2.	How many such crossings are there at which such automatic warning devices have been installed?
3.	Is any program for installation of additional automatic warning devices currently under way and, if so, at what crossings are such additional warning devices to be installed?
4.	What, listed by name of road or street, and location, are (a) the crossings where additional automatic warning devices are in existence (b) the crossings where installations are to take place (c) the crossings at which no such devices exist?
Return tabled.


CAMP HILL HOSPITAL
Mr. Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria): 1.	Is Camp Hill hospital a wholly owned Department of Veterans Affairs institution?
2.	What is the total bed capacity of Camp Hill hospital?
3.	What are the names of medical personnel, both full-time and consultants on strength at Camp Hill hospital, and what are their qualifications?
June 26, 1967

4.	Under what sections of veterans treatment regulations are Canada's veterans admitted, and in layman's terms, what are the provisions of these sections?
Return tabled.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: At this point I rise on a question of privilege. In view of the desire of hon. members to bring about a termination of this portion of the session without in any way reducing our responsibilities, the matter of answers to questions becomes of great importance. Starred questions in the British tradition are to be answered within three days. The answers to starred questions today are being delayed unnecessarily in certain instances. I point out that starred question No. 81 that I placed on the order paper on May 17 regarding the position of the international control commission in Asia has not yet been answered. There can be no excuse for that delay.
Furthermore, another starred question which the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Brand) put on the order paper on May 8, having to do with the Steven Truscott case, has not been answered. In that instance too there has been an unjustifiable delay. I ask the government to give attention to these matters and to have replies made at the first opportunity. There can be no reason for having starred questions if they are starred only in the record but not in the minds of the ministers to whom they are directed.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister concerning the excellent speech the Secretary of State for External Affairs delivered at the United Nations during the course of the debate. He set out four definite points; I will not outline them, but they are in his speech.
I would ask this. Was it a matter of government decision that two of the six points enunciated by the Prime Minister in his speech in the house of June 8, 1967, were omitted? I particularly refer to that part on page 1294 of Hansard for June 8, 1967, where the Prime Minister said that one of the six points was the establishment once again of a United 27053-1231
Inquiries of the Ministry Nations presence in force between the armies that have been fighting, and a presence which will operate on both sides of the border.
Why was that important point omitted? Will the Prime Minister also say, in connection with the Middle East problem, whether his attention has been drawn to the views expressed today by His Holiness the Pope to the effect that Jerusalem should be internationalized? What is the attitude of the government in that regard?


Righi Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, so far as the omission of any points made in this house from the speech by the Secretary of State for External Affairs is concerned, if the right hon. gentleman will take another look at the speech he will find the point that he mentioned as having been omitted has been included, but not in the four points that were referred to seriatim. It was referred to as an indication in general of the importance of the United Nations presence in the area. That was referred to in the speech, but not as one of the four points.
So far as the suggestion of His Holiness the Pope is concerned, we have taken the position-and I think I referred to this the other day in the house-that there should be international supervision of the holy places of Jerusalem. That was one of the points the Secretary of State for External Affairs mentioned in his statement.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure we all welcome the Secretary of State for External Affairs back to the house after his arduous labours. I wish to ask him if any pattern seems to be emerging from the discussions which have taken place, particularly the private discussions at the United Nations and those which have been held between the President of the United States and the premier of the Soviet union.
I should also like the minister to tell us whether there is any particular program for which the Canadian government is pressing, for example a political settlement precedent to any withdrawal of troops, or any long term plan for the placement of refugees and the economic rehabilitation of the middle east.


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: I thank the hon. gentleman and the right hon. Leader of the Opposition for their generous words. At the present time there are two propositions before the general assembly, one put forward by the United
June 26, 1967

Inquiries of the Ministry States and one put forward by the Soviet union. It may be that neither of those resolutions in its present form will, in its entirety, command wide support. It may be that the best course would be to work for a compromise arrangement. In any event we shall have to see what is the outcome of the present debate, and whether a compromise resolution which might set in motion some encouragement for negotiation directly between the parties or through the intervention of a third party, either under the auspices of the United Nations or otherwise, might be acceptable.
The position we took with regard to the main issue, namely the call for the withdrawal of the forces of Israel, was that such a withdrawal must be related to the other basic issues involved including, of course, the rights of Israel and the other parties, such rights as freedom of navigation, the solution of the refugee problem and issues of that sort. We would certainly hope there would be a relation between the request for a withdrawal and a recognition of these issues. It is too early at this time to say whether there will be this relationship between the request for withdrawal and a recognition of the issue I have mentioned.
In any event this is the objective the Canadian delegation has in mind, and I cannot see that as a result of the talks between the chairman of the council of ministers of the Soviet union, Mr. Kosygin, and the President of the United States any real progress in this regard has been made. Certainly nothing which was said by the President, nothing which was said by Mr. Kosygin in his press conference last night, indicates that either of these two countries has changed the position which it formally stated before, the general assembly. Nevertheless I am sure I express the views of everyone in this house when I say we were gratified that the heads of the governments of the two most powerful countries in the world did have ten hours of discussion.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In view of the fact that the Soviet union and some other nations have made vehement demands for the withdrawal of Israeli forces, will the Canadian government oppose any move on the part of the United Nations to order a withdrawal of Israeli forces unless it is accompanied by the kind of ironclad guarantees to which the minister himself has just referred?
[Mr. Martin (Essex East) .1


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: The Canadian position is that while we cannot support the seizure of territory by force, withdrawal by the forces of Israel must be linked with the negotiation of arrangements which take into account the basic rights and interests of the parties concerned; and in this instance, of course, Israel is very much included.


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, on Friday last I asked the right hon. Prime Minister whether the government was contemplating any special or additional contribution to UNRWA to deal with the immediate needs of the refugees, and the right hon. gentleman said he would rather leave the matter until today when the details would be known. Could the house be informed of them now?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, as my hon. friend knows an announcement was made in the house last week that deliveries under the $2| million which had been made available in earlier appropriations for food and relief to the Middle East area would be speeded up, and that in addition there would be a special contribution for emergency medical supplies through the Red Cross.
It was difficult last week and before that to obtain from the International Red Cross and the United Nations authorities the exact nature of their requirements to meet the immediate emergency but we did finally get, and I think I indicated this last Friday, a good deal of information. As a result of an examination of this information concerning the needs and the emergency requirements, the government has decided to make available an additional $1 million worth of food aid to the United Nations relief and works agency. That doubles the food aid to UNRWA, which was $1 million in the earlier appropriation. It was also decided to meet the cost of the transportation of this additional food aid to the area concerned, a cost which had previously been borne by other United Nations members of the organization.
These transport costs will come to between $125,000 and $225,000. It was also decided to make available an extra $80,000 to the Canadian Red Cross for emergency supplies, largely medical supplies. This represents an additional $1,200,000 or $1,300,000 worth of aid to meet the requirements of relief and rehabilitation with which we now find ourselves faced in the Middle East as a result of the conflict.
June 26, 1967


Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a further question to the right hon. Prime Minister. Is the government considering the advisability of making continuing contributions to relief and the assistance of refugees conditional upon sincere efforts being made to rehabilitate the refugees so they will not be a continuing problem throughout the years?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I think this is a very important point. Before the outbreak of the conflict a few weeks ago, we associated with our contributions not a condition but a statement that some effective effort must be made to deal with this problem if we were not to continue making contributions merely to keep people on relief. We did not make that a condition because we did not feel we could do it in that way and then have the refugees themselves suffer because of the absence of relief. If all member countries had made such a condition there would be no relief at all. We have done our best, however, to create the impression that we cannot go on indefinitely meeting these emergency situations by monetary relief. We have made that clear and we will make it clear in connection with our additional contribution.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, a moment ago I asked the reason for the omission of the United Nations force operating between the two areas, the Arab and Israeli areas, from the four points given by the minister at the UN, and the Prime Minister replied that he felt this had been dealt with in the speech by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs why he did not press for the establishment of a United Nations presence in force between the armies, to use the words of the Prime Minister, and that that presence should operate on both sides of the boundary. The Prime Minister mentioned that this was dealt with in the speech made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs why he was so delightfully uncertain in this regard, because the reference to it in his speech was as follows:
Canada supplied the first commander, General Burns, and a sizeable contingent to the force. UNEF was the first peace keeping force to be established by the United Nations. I am convinced that its record of accomplishment and service will be a legacy upon which the United Nations will be able to draw in future. This record will be far more important in the verdict of history than the current differences of opinion over the circumstances of its withdrawal.
Inquiries of the Ministry
If the minister still believes in the force, why didn't Canada come out for direct operation rather than pay encomiums to the record of history and the legacy of the future, and say we want a United Nations force strong enough to preserve the peace in the Middle East?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I think we did both those very things. First of all I took occasion to pay tribute to the contribution made by the United Nations emergency force, and I underlined that I thought that contribution was more important than the controversy over the circumstances of its withdrawal. But I did say with regard to the United Nations truce supervision organization, which is an existing presence of the United Nations, that Canada envisaged it as having a continuing responsibility not only with regard to the withdrawal of forces but also for the function of observation. We hope that this organization, already established by the security council, will have not only its present but also an expanded role. However, that is something that remains to be decided once the substantive issues now before the general assembly have been dealt with.


Mr. Jack Roxburgh (Norfolk):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister with regard to the refugee problem. A couple of days ago the Prime Minister stated that Canada would be willing to take a certain number of Arab refugees. If we do take some of these refugees I want an assurance that it will not interfere with our present immigration policy which we have established, to bring in some 200,000-odd immigrants this year.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I think, Mr. Speaker, any contribution, as part of a United Nations effort, that we could make to this problem by taking in certain refugees, would have to be considered apart from and beyond our ordinary immigration pattern, that is to say, the flow of immigrants coming in in the ordinary way.


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a related question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has the military commander of the United Nations emergency force made a report to the secretary general of the United Nations concerning the steps that were taken for the withdrawal of the force, the attacks that were made on that force and the casualties that were suffered? And if there is such a report, will it be made available to the House of Commons?
June 26, 1967

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: Mr. Speaker, I made inquiries when I was at the general assembly on Thursday last as to whether such a report would be made available. One will be made available as a result of the report the secretary general himself will be making to the security council, but the report of the force commander is not as yet a public document.

Mr. Speaker, may I just take one moment to supplement an answer I gave a few minutes ago to the right hon. Leader of the Opposition. In addition to the United Nations truce supervisory organization which continues to function, and which I mentioned in my statement, I also referred to the Palestine conciliation commission, which many people seem to have forgotten, but which is still in existence.-


John George Diefenbaker: And inoperative.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: Yes, it is operative. The significance of that commission is that in its membership are to be found, in addition to Turkey, two of the great powers, the United States and France. I believe my right hon. friend may find that considerable attention will be given to a possible further role for that commission.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, would the minister table the speech he made so that those who run may read; because I have examined it very carefully and I find there was such an omission to deal with an emergency force, and that surprises me.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: I shall be very glad to table the speech. I would simply point out that in one portion of the speech there is this sentence:
I would expect them to exercise a continuous responsibility as the withdrawal of Israeli forces takes place, particularly if arrangements can be made for this withdrawal which will result in demilitarized zones on both sides of the borders.
This sentence follows a statement which reads:	"The UN military observers-the
United Nations truce supervisory organization-to whom I wish to pay special tribute, have already played a valuable role in observing the cease fire".


John George Diefenbaker: That is not the United Nations emergency force.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend points out that it is not the United Nations
[Mr. Churchill.)
emergency force. Regrettably that force has been withdrawn.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. member leave to table the speech?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. D. V. Pugh (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Is it still United Nations policy that the belligerents should agree on the nationals who form the peace keeping force?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: I am sorry, I did not hear the question.


David Vaughan Pugh: Is it United Nations policy that the belligerent nations should agree on the nationals who form the United Nations peace keeping force?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I think it must be clear that before any United Nations force can be established it must have the consent of the country in whose territory the force will operate. If it involves more than one country, then the consent of these countries for the establishment of the force is an essential condition.


John George Diefenbaker: Then this is the end of the force.


David Vaughan Pugh: Has Canada been approached by the United Nations to keep such a force ready?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: The United Nations has not dealt with the nature of the United Nations presence that may be required. As I said a moment ago, the United Nations truce supervisory organization is carrying on its function of observation. Canada has some 22 officers who are part of that United Nations truce supervisory organization, a body which continues to perform, as it did during the cease fire, a very great service to the cause of peace.



WATER RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Malher (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, if I could move from world problems to the local scene I have a question I should like to direct to the Minister of Public
June 26, 1967

Works in his capacity as the minister responsible for the national capital area. My question has to do with the very serious water pollution situation in the Ottawa river. The question is one which is being asked by many people. Can we do nothing to stop the pollution of this river before it becomes a proper sewer?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question is of a very general nature and cannot be asked at this time.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. A. MacLean (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport of which I have given him notice. Were hearings held by the Canadian Maritime Commission into the rates charged on the Borden-Cape Tormentine ferry service, as was indicated would be the case, before authorization was given for the discontinuance of the sale of reduced round trip tickets which I understand is to come into effect on July 1?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, because of the date on which the proposed change is to become effective, I think the question is urgent. I am very grateful to the hon. member for Queens for his courtesy in letting me know that he intended to ask this question.
The hearings, which at that time it was thought might be held, were not held because in the interval we had come to the conclusion that there should be no general over-all increase at all. It was thought that the scheme which had been worked out of selling books of ten tickets so that regular users would not have any increased charge would meet most of the problems that might have come up at a hearing.
Perhaps I might be permitted to add just one word. In the statement I issued on Friday I added the following:
But if experience shows there are other users, such as farmers carrying their produce in their own trucks, who are not able to benefit from the commuter rates the maritime commission is prepared to give consideration to some means of meeting such problems.
It was thought that really the serious problem would be met by the commuter ticket system, but that if there were some cases of
Inquiries of the Ministry hardship it would be better to see what they were before we have hearings in relation to them.


John Angus MacLean: May I be permitted a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Before the announcement was made was the Prince Edward Island government advised of the proposal and did they acquiesce to it in advance?


John Whitney Pickersgill: It was not felt that it would be proper to ask the Prince Edward Island government to take any share of what is a purely federal responsibility. However, the government was informed of the intention, and the government of Prince Edward Island as well as others in Prince Edward Island who are interested had emphasized to us the urgency of improving the service. I am sure the hon. member knows that these improvements in the service were urgently needed for the summer traffic.


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. I should like to ask the minister whether, since the announcement of this very steep increase, he has received a protest from the government of Prince Edward Island and, if so, what action he is taking in that regard.


John Whitney Pickersgill: To the best of my knowledge I have received no protest from anyone.


Mr. David MacDonald (Prince):: Mr. Speaker, I have a further supplementary question which I should like to direct to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that this action as announced by the Minister of Transport on Friday is to take place on the anniversary of confederation, on Dominion day or Confederation day, July 1, will the Prime Minister give very serious consideration to delaying such action against one of our provinces until full consideration can be given to the matter and time allowed for the various interested bodies to put forward their own views, since this is something which will affect transportation to one of the finest provinces of this country?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that next Saturday, as my hon. friend says, is Confederation day I will be pleased to discuss the matter with the minister.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: You can argue that out between yourselves.

June 26, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry HOUSE OF COMMONS



BEQUEST THAT PROCEEDINGS BE TELEVISED

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister on a matter of urgency. It has to do with a viewing of parliament by the C.B.C. while parliament is in session. It becomes emergent now because of the early adjournment of this session. Various members have spoken on the need for youngsters of Canada attending school to know about the operation of parliament. This need not be done at great length, but it should be done in such a way as to give them an idea of how parliament operates. So far as we are concerned, we are for it. There are a few Liberal members who are opposed to it. I ask the Prime Minister would not he, as leader of the house, take this matter in hand and give the C.B.C. the opportunity to go ahead with something which will be beneficial not only this year but for future generations, and particularly in this our centennial year.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I shall be glad to look into this matter. I know my hon. friend the house leader has been discussing it with members of the other parties. Perhaps he will be in a position to make a statement later this week in the hope, which I share, that we might be able to do something along these lines next week. However, I would rather put it off until September or October and do it in the right way than do it next week without adequate preparation.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, there have been many opportunities. The cameras were here. If we wait until the fall it will be too late for the schools of Canada to have the information. This may not be the view of the hon. member who constantly abolishes the Queen, but I think it is the view of everybody else.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I shall be glad to look into it.



REPORTED DISCREPANCY IN COMMODITY ACCOUNT FIGURES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Trade and Commerce. When the minister authorized publication of the figures on

the balance of trade in commodity account-he also used the figures in his report in discussing his estimates before the committee-was he aware of the omission from the report of the returns from a major port, with the result that there was a discrepancy of over $100 million in the figures?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I doubt that this is a question that can be asked at this time.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Last Thursday the right hon. gentleman, in reply to a question asked by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, said he might be able to make a statement today or tomorrow regarding a government decision concerning the stockpiling of steel at the Dosco plant at Sydney to alleviate the unemployment situation there. Is the right hon. gentleman in a position to make this statement today?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I assure my hon. friend that the statement on that very important matter will be made tomorrow. We will be discussing the matter again in cabinet tomorrow morning and will make the statement in the afternoon.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jean-Eudes Dube (Restigouche-Mada-waska):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development.
Further to a recent and urgent report from the CRAN group of northeastern New Brunswick, does the minister responsible for the implementation of ARDA intend to proceed soon with the appointment of directors and co-ordinators of this first pilot area to be established in the country?


Hon. Maurice Sauve (Minister of Forestry and Rural Development):: Mr. Speaker, the Civil Service Commission will announce this week the appointment of Mr. Henri Tetu, former manager of the Eastern Quebec
June 26, 1967

Development Board, as the first federal coordinator in this northeastern area of New Brunswick.
It will be recalled that, in September 1966, two agreements were signed between the government-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is the minister rising to make a statement at this time? If he is, I suggest that he should ask leave to revert to motions.


Maurice Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to make a long statement, but I know there have been comments in the newspapers and on the radio with regard to certain administrative delays, and I should like to reassure the members of the house concerning what has happened since September. If the Chair would rather I wait till tomorrow, I shall willingly wait till then, on motions. Is there any objection to-


Mr. Speaker:: Is there any objection to having the minister now give the house the information he has just alluded to?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Maurice Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, on September 20, 1966, the federal government and the government of New Brunswick signed two agreements on area development. On September 27-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. There seems to be some objection to having the minister pursue his statement. Therefore, I suggest that he either wait until motions are called tomorrow or ask the house to revert to motions immediately.



WHEAT-REPORTED CANCELLATION OF JAPANESE CONTRACT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldt-Melforl-Tisdale):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce under whose jurisdiction the Canadian Wheat Board falls. Will the minister inform the house the exact amount and volume of the wheat contract with Japan, which according to press reports has been cancelled; and will he give the reasons for the failure to reach agreement?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Robert Winters (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, there has been no cancellation of a contract with Japan. Discussions have been going on for the last few days in Japan between Japan and the Canadian Wheat Board, and it has been agreed that for the time being Japan will purchase her requirements on a month to month basis. But there is nothing by way of withdrawal of a contract.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, is the press report correct to the effect that Japan and Canada have failed to agree on Japanese imports of Canadian wheat, because the Japanese felt prices were too high, while Canada thinks the prices will be maintained; is it a fact that as a result of the breakdown of negotiations Canadian wheat will increase by 2 cents a bushel for Manitoba No. 2 and 9 cents for Nos. 3 and 4? It is also reported that there will be no acceptance at the present time of the general price level of the international wheat agreement. Is this accurate?


Robert Henry Winters: Japan agreed at Geneva to the general structure of the agreement negotiated under the terms of the Kennedy round, but they have decided, in the light of the uncertainties at this stage of the growing season, that they would prefer to wait and take their wheat on a month to month basis. This was all done in a most amicable and friendly way between Japan and the Canadian Wheat Board.


John George Diefenbaker: I am not speaking about the amicable nature of the discussions, but would it be amicable if the Japanese government gave notice that if the price continues at the present level, low priced wheat will be imported from other sources such as the United States and Australia? Is that so?



INQUIRY AS TO FREIGHT RATES FROM INTERIOR B.C. TO COAST

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Transport. I apologize for not sending him notice but I was unfortunately detained by a couple of pressmen who wanted to know where my centennial bust was going to be erected in Kootenay West.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
June 26, 1967

Inquiries of the Ministry


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Can the minister inform the house of any late developments with respect to the negotiations for the hauling of coal from the interior of British Columbia to the Pacific coast?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I did not realize that the hon. gentleman was having a centennial bust, and I congratulate him.


John George Diefenbaker: What is the nature of it?


John Whitney Pickersgill: It may be that later this week I will have something to communicate, but at the present time I have nothing that would add to the encyclopaedic knowledge the hon. gentleman already has.
[Translation\



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Auguste Choquelle (Lolbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct the following question to the brilliant Minister of Transport. Since turbotrains will be put into operation in the near future, will the transport commission and the railway companies conclude an agreement soon concerning regulations which would provide maximum safety at grade crossings?


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest that the hon. member should put his question on the order paper.


Auguste Choquette: At ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker. FORESTRY



OTTAWA-STATEMENT ON FATAL ACCIDENT AT LABORATORY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Maurice Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, last Friday the hon. member for Queens (Mr. MacLean) asked a question in the house concerning the accident which occurred on property belonging to the department of forestry in the Ottawa area.
An investigation is being made by the provincial, federal and municipal authorities to determine the cause of this accident, which did not take place in the laboratory but in a household garbage truck. Unfortunately, one of the men working on the truck died last Thursday.
We will give out more detailed information when we have it.
[Mr. Herridge.)



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I had a question I wanted to put to the Prime Minister, but in view of the fact that he has had to leave the house I wonder if I may put it to the govern-men house leader. In view of the fact that the arrangements we have now made for bringing to a close this part of the current session include time for legislation other than supply, notably Friday, July 7, after we have passed the supply bill, will the government do its best to bring before the house before we break for the summer recess the legislation respecting pension increases for retired civil servants?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister and the Minister of National Revenue I shall be glad to take this question as notice and bring it to the attention of the Prime Minister for an answer at a later date.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, will the minister, as government house leader, also take notice of it himself?



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Melvin McQuaid (Kings):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. I would ask the minister whether Northumberland Ferries Limited, the private company which operates the ferry service between Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, made a request of the government for an increase in rates on that particular service.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. gentleman knows, of course, Northumberland Ferries are subsidized quite substantially out of the federal treasury. There was a very great deal of pressure for additional service that would have added substantially to the cost. It was felt that the additional service was needed because of the desire of people to visit Prince Edward Island. Because of the additional cost it did not seem unreasonable that some part of it should be recouped.

June 26, 1967


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I have a supplementary question tor the Minister of Transport. In his press release on Friday afternoon he contended that the additional service will be paid for out of the additional cost. Is there a direct relationship or is this just a hit or miss affair?


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



TRANSPORTATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. E. Pascoe (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I also have a question for the Minister of Transport.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I seem to be popular today.


James Ernest Pascoe: Has the minister any more definite information regarding a meeting in western Canada of the Board of Transport Commissioners with parties wishing to present their views on possible rail line abandonments?


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to me this is a repetition of a question which was asked last Friday.


James Ernest Pascoe: Mr. Speaker, this is an important matter. A meeting has been called for August 1, and we are trying to have one in western Canada before that date. I gave the minister notice of the question.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether you would let me answer the question briefly. An announcement has been made today that a meeting will be held in Winnipeg on August 8.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Vaughan Pugh: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the house leader. While he is transmitting information concerning pensions of public servants, could he also clarify the situation with regard to veterans dependants who were left out in the last increase?
Inquiries of the Ministry AIR TRANSPORT



PROPOSED ADDITIONAL SERVICE, OTTAWA-WESTERN CANADA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. W. Priftie (Burnaby-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport and I have given him notice of it. Did the Air Transport Board receive an offer from Pacific Western Airlines to provide additional service from Ottawa to western Canada between July 2 and 16 and, if so, what has been the response of the board to this offer?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first part of the question is yes, and the answer to the second part is that the offer is under very active consideration at the present moment.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Ed. Schreyer (Springfield):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the persistent and mounting allegations of atrocities committed during the course of fighting in the Middle East, can the minister say whether any effort is being made under international auspices to make a determination of these allegations as well as of the reports recently emanating from the Middle East that Israel is attempting to forcibly expatriate Arab residents from the area recently conquered?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, may I take that question as notice.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct to the house leader a question which he has been asked on several occasions by the hon. member for Skeena. Is he giving consideration to the calling before the recess of the standing committee which deals with Indian affairs so that it can organize and arrange for the tours of Indian reservations which have been considered by the committee in the last few years?
June 26, 1967

Supply-Solicitor General
Hon, A. J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare): Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to discuss this question with the minister and the committee chairman to see whether an appropriate reference could be evolved for launching the work of the committee.


TELEVISION
Robert William Prittie: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State I wonder whether her parliamentary secretary could pass on our congratulations to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the other broadcasting companies involved for the program "Our World" which was broadcast yesterday and which I think was a success, even though the eastern European countries withdrew.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: that the house go into committee of supply.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee of supply, Mr. Batten in the chair.


The Chairman:: Pursuant to the special order made this day the estimates of the following departments for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1968 are now being first taken up and entered for consideration in committee of supply: Legislation, the Department of Manpower and Immigration, and the Privy Council. Shall I report when the committee rises later this day that the estimates of these three departments for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1968 have been first taken up and entered for consideration?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
The estimates of the following departments were first taken up and entered for consideration.
Legislation.
Department of Manpower and Immigration.
Privy Council.


Herman Maxwell Batten: The committee will now proceed to the consideration of the estimates of the Solicitor General, vote No. 1. Vote No. 1 will be found on page 478 of the blue book and the details are listed on page 480.


DEPARTMENT OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL
[Stage Direction]
1. Departmental administration including administrative expenses of the committee on corrections plus such fees, salaries and expenses as may be approved by Treasury Board for members and the panel of consultants and staff named by the minister to advise and assist the committee, and grants as detailed in the estimates, $1,015,400.
[Mr. Orlikow.)
Mr. Pennell:: Mr. Chairman, I am grateful for the constructive criticism by hon. members during the course of the debate and I should like to express my appreciation of the non-partisan spirit in which hon. members entered into the debate.
First of all I propose to deal with some of the salient points raised in the attractive speech made by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka. I wish to assure the hon. member that I am in full sympathy with what he said with regard to minimum security institutions. I can assure him that the Beaver Creek minimum security institution will not be closing. On the contrary, it will be expanded to a 150-man minimum security training institution over the next two years, and preliminary discussions have been entered into with officials of the Ontario department of forestry. There will be no cut-backs in the program for minimum security institutions. The program is directed toward making them more permanent and more effective in all regions of the country.
The hon. member also made some interesting observations relating to the National Parole Board. I hope he will permit me to say that this debate pointed up the difficulties confronting the parole board. On the one hand we heard hon. members expressing the opinion-I say this with great respect-that perhaps the parole board is being overly generous in granting paroles and is not scrutinizing applications closely enough. At the same time criticism was raised that the board was not generous enough. So it is caught between two fires. I should again like to put on the record my view that non-institutional treatment such as probation and parole offers the best hope for human renewal.
The hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka suggested that the parole board should give reasons for refusing to grant paroles. I concede at once that quite a valid argument can be made on this point, but I would also point out that perhaps there are overriding arguments on the other side of the question. At the present time I understand the parole board receives very valuable information on a confidential basis from respectable citizens, and it seems to me that if reasons for refusing parole were made public the sources of information coming to the board would be materially reduced. This might adversely affect the number of paroles granted.
The hon. member went on to raise the question of the erasing of criminal records. He mentioned the difficulties confronting the
June 26, 1967

department in this regard. I concur wholeheartedly in his view that any action taken in parliament will really not get to the core of the problem facing ex-inmates. However, I believe we should make every effort to reduce areas of injustice, and although the advance may be small this should not be an excuse for not giving this matter very serious consideration.
The hon. member for Vancouver East asked me to give him an assurance that we would not proceed with any more maximum security institutions of the present design following the completion of the institution at Millhaven.
I am pleased to give that undertaking. The ten-year plan is subject to review. We have now reached the half way point, so it seems to me that this is a reasonable place to stop and take a look at our designs and our program in the light of our experience and anticipated needs in the next five years.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
I do not quarrel with the hon. member's suggestion that we have not yet provided the answer to the problem of recidivism. However, I feel we have made some progress. It is no comfort to me or to the officials in my department to point out that the United States and Great Britain are facing increased rates of crime greater than that being experienced in Canada. In his 1966 message to congress, President Johnson expressed concern by calling for an increased effort to end the self-defeating cycle of imprisonment, release and re-imprisonment.
Recently I visited the maximum state security institution at Atica, New York, and I was surprised to learn that the institution houses 2,100 inmates and that plans are being formulated to build an addition for 400 more inmates. I am sure the committee will be pleased to learn that under our ten-year plan accommodation in our new institutions will not exceed 450. The three new medium security institutions will be opening this year and this will permit us to transfer a large number of inmates from our present maximum security institutions to medium security institutions.
The hon. member for Kings, in a very sincere speech, made a plea for more adequate provision for the short-term offender in the county jails. He will be interested to learn, I am sure, that we have recently had discussions with the attorneys general of two of the maritime provinces with a view to transferring some of the so-called long term offenders in county jails to our new minimum and

Supply-Solicitor General medium institutions where we feel we can provide better training for them.
The hon. members for Lafontaine and Lotbiniere raised a matter that has exercised my mind for some time, the question of capital punishment. I do not propose to say anything further on that subject at this time except to assure them that I listened with a great deal of interest to their very thoughtful suggestions.
The hon. member for Skeena touched on some very important problems that face the penitentiary service. He cited the difficulties surrounding the introduction of trade and technical training into our penal institutions. He mentioned the nub of the problem when he said it is compounded by the age of the offenders and by their lack of education. It seems to me that we can perhaps perform a most useful service by putting more emphasis on academic training of our inmates while they are in these institutions rather than trying to concentrate entirely on technical and trade training.
The hon. member for Skeena pointed out also that we might have some difficulty in moving forward with industrial training and that we would have to have consultations with the various trade unions. This is a fair and reasonable suggestion. It was brought home to me most forcibly last week when I received a letter from a merchant in my own constituency complaining that the products resulting from our trade training program were competing with his products for woodworking in schools. I recognize the force of his argument, and it should cause us to review all our trade and technical training programs in institutions.
I believe I have dealt with the salient points that were raised during the course of the debate. Perhaps at this time I may point out to the committee that a reference to the blue book of estimates would appear to indicate there is a reduction in the appropriation for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. It is only fair to alert members of the committee that the apparent reduction of some $11,210,071 is brought about by the fact the Royal Canadian Mounted Police have, at the request of Treasury Board, introduced what is known as net voting. In other words, the appropriation being requested now is an amount less the revenues received from contracts. This is a new system which the Royal Canadian Mounted Police are pioneering this year. Actually there will be an increase this
June 26, 1967

Supply-Solicitor General year of $12,111,929 sought by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. I thought I should bring this fact to the attention of the committee because members may wish to expand upon this point when we are dealing with the various items.


Mr. Aiken:: The minister raised one matter, Mr. Chairman, with which I should like him to deal further. It relates in general to trade training within the institutions. His last remark caused me some concern because it indicated that the penitentiaries branch may be reviewing the trade training program in institutions with regard to work that may become competitive with private business. I cannot help but agree that in some cases unfair competition with private industry does result. However, I would urge very strongly that the minister should not review the trade training program with a view to cutting it back but perhaps with a view to directing it into channels which would not create undue competition with the private sector.
In that regard I should like to refer to such work as can be done for other departments of the government. I know that the penitentiaries branch provides gymnasium equipment and so forth for schools. I would hope that the production of these items would not interfere with private industry. Nevertheless, I think it is a general weakness of the program, particularly in the minimum security institutions, that the inmates are not provided with productive work to do. I would be very sorry to see any cut-back in the trade training program or in the actual production programs these institutions are undertaking. I believe there are many areas in which work can be done by the inmates of a penitentiary and the resultant product put on the market without any interference with private business. I think studies could very easily be undertaken to that end. I hope that in any review we will not allow ourselves to be frightened away from institutional production.
I should like to refer also to the expansion that is being proposed at Beaver Creek camp, which the minister mentioned today. Changes are contemplated in inmate employment, but I believe this work must be effective. In the Beaver Creek camp there has been some move to produce equipment and I understand there is a good deal of work available that could be done. I hope that the expansion is based on some sort of increased production and that the question of accommodation will be a secondary consideration. The minister mentioned


there had been some discussion with the provincial department of lands and forests about this camp. I expect there are plenty of jobs which can be performed on behalf of that department.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
Along the same line, Mr. Chairman, I think that the penitentiaries branch should make more adequate use of inmate labour for local projects. Here again I realize that the department has to be careful not to place itself in competition with local labour. I know that in some cases there has been hesitancy about sending out inmates to perform very healthy outdoor jobs which would benefit the community. These are the sort of jobs in respect of which nobody else can either provide the funds or the personnel, jobs such as clearing park areas for the department of lands and forests or local communities. The inmates would not compete with local industry for labour in the performance of such tasks because in most cases no money is available.
Up to this point I think the policy in this regard has been reasonably good. However, I have noticed that several projects at Beaver Creek camp were turned down and there appeared to be no logical reason for refusing them. These were projects on which no local labour would have been employed. They were community projects for which no other money would have been available. These inmates could have been put to work to improve the community's landscape and appearance. As I stated before, they would have been provided with good, healthy outdoor work and their physical and mental health would have benefited.
From what I have seen of these requests, Mr. Chairman, it seems to me the policy of the department is not very clear. Decisions are not left to the local camp superintendent at all but are referred to some other quarter, probably to Kingston. Apparently there is no way of knowing in advance whether or not a project will be approved. I know that two or three projects which were requested had to be sent on for decision, even though they appeared to me to involve the perfectly logical use of inmate labour. I can see no reason whatever why the superintendent at Beaver Creek camp should be required to get consent from somebody else.
I go back to what I said at the beginning of my remarks, Mr. Chairman, that there is not enough control within the local institutions. I refer not only to Beaver Creek camp but to others as well. I suggest that surely to
June 26, 1967	COMMONS
goodness the person in charge of the camp should be able to make minor decisions as to where his men will work without referring the matter elsewhere.
With these few additional remarks, which were prompted by the minister's comments and concern about the performance of work in competition with private industry, I will conclude. If I may repeat, I do hope that the minister will not cut back the policy he has been developing of giving inmates good, healthy occupations both inside and outside the institution as well some pride in production, and if there is to be a review I hope it will focus upon an increase in training rather than a decrease.


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Chairman, may I briefly answer one of the questions raised by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka. I should like to bring to his attention the fact that an organizational study has commenced or is about to commence within the department, and I hope that as a result of that study we will have some answers on the regional set-up which may satisfy the hon. member.


Mr. Fulton:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the minister a question about the prospective timetable for realizing one of the objectives of the penal reform program. I am sure the minister will be familiar with the fact that at the conference of provincial attorneys general and reform institution ministers in 1958, at which conference there was unanimous agreement in principle on a penal reform program, it was agreed that the federal institutions would receive and be responsible for all persons sentenced to terms of six months or more. As a matter of sentencing practice it was decided that ultimately an amendment would be introduced to the Criminal Code to do away with sentences of between six months and two years. The agreement in principle that federal institutions would be enlarged and the federal program revised so as ultimately to lead to the housing of all persons sentenced to six months or more in a federal institution was a matter of great interest to most of the provinces, though a matter of considerably greater urgency to some than to others. It was of particular interest to the maritime provinces.
In subsequent years, Mr. Chairman, while I had responsibility for the department we were not able to complete the reform of our institutions and the implementation of the federal program to the point where it was possible to give effect to the understanding or
DEBATES	1939
Supply-Solicitor General agreement in principle reached with the provinces. But more than four years have now passed since that time, and although I am aware of the difficulties that remain-construction is involved; the fact that the inmate population is increasing is also a factor: -nevertheless, I would ask the minister whether he can say if he has yet been able to set a target date when he thinks he might commence to take over this additional responsibility for inmates in provincial institutions? If he cannot give me an over-all target date, is there any indication he can give that the transfer of responsibility can be made in phases? It would be of great assistance to the maritime provinces if an early start could be made in the transfer of responsibility.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Chairman, I am grateful to the hon. member for raising this point, which perhaps I should have raised in my opening statement on the estimates. I recognize not only the interest of the hon. gentleman but also the action he took in the field of penal reform. As I have said on other occasions, we are building on the foundation that was laid when the hon. gentleman was the responsible minister. In our defence, if I may put it that way, the department is now asking for perhaps the largest appropriation ever made to construct buildings since the ten-year plan was proposed, and the ten-year plan evolved out of the conference that was arranged by the hon. gentleman. I do not foresee the full implementation of the 1958 recommendation, but I have had discussions with the attorneys general of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland with a view to implementing the suggestion of the hon. member for Kamloops. There is a strong possibility that later this year, when we open the new medium security institution at Springhill, we may begin to absorb some of the long-term county jail inmates in the maritimes. That is as far as I am able to go at this time.


David Orlikow: I read with considerable interest, Mr. Chairman, the opening remarks of the minister on June 6. I was struck by the pedestrian and circumscribed report the minister made compared with that which the former minister of justice, who has just resigned, made two or three years ago on the future activities and plans of the government. It seems to me that in a pedestrian fashion we are continuing to replace buildings. They are among the worst correctional buildings in the western world. In fact, it would be an insult
June 26, 1967

Supply-Solicitor General to the principle of correction to grace our institutions with the name "correctional institutions". In my opinion, and possibly in the opinion of the minister, they are not correctional institutions. They are now, as they have been for 100 years, punitive institutions. We are proposing to replace buildings which are 100 years old or more with new buildings which are not much better.
Though we may replace the buildings, unless we change the principle under which we have operated we shall continue to have, if not the worst, one of the worst penal and correctional systems in the western world. It is a system which gives Canada the dubious honour of having the highest recidivism rate in the western world. It has been estimated that 85 per cent of those entering our penal institutions will return for a second or third time. As far as I can see, nothing that the government is doing or that the minister is proposing will change this situation.
As found on page 1217 of Hansard for June 6, 1947, the minister said:
The penitentiary service, like many other agencies in similar fields, has experienced considerable difficulty in recruiting adequate staff, especially professionals in the psychiatric, psychological and sociological disciplines, to bring about changing treatment and training programs being introduced into its existing institutions and those planned for its new treatment centres.
It is not surprising that we are experiencing difficulties. As the minister said, every institution that needs professionals of the disciplines he enumerated is experiencing difficulties. But other institutions or organizations needing them have established some system of grants for training. The understanding is that those who accept grants will come back to the institution which provides them. If we want psychiatrists we must do that. We must go to the medical schools and say to those who are to graduate: If you want to be psychiatrists, particularly psychiatrists who will work in correctional institutions, we will give you a grant to train with the condition that you work for us. We have nothing like that, and the results are obvious. They have been shown to us in answers to questions that I and other hon. members have asked.
Though the psychiatrist at Kingston is classified as a full-time psychiatrist I do not think that we have in fact a single, full-time psychiatrist in our correctional institutions.


Lawrence T. Pennell: As of this year we have two full-time psychiatrists.


David Orlikow: Where?


Lawrence T. Pennell: There are two full-time psychiatrists at Kingston. We added another fulltime psychiatrist at Kingston this year.


David Orlikow: I presume that the minister means that another psychiatrist has been added in addition to Dr. Scott. However, I understand that Dr. Scott conducts a private clinic and a private practice as well. I would not consider him full-time.
I wish to repeat publicly so as to have it on the record something I said to the minister privately, because I am prepared to stand publicly behind what I say in private. The views which Dr. Scott expressed in newspaper interviews during the discussion of the Steven Truscott case were completely unprofessional and unwarranted. One who works in a correctional institution and who interviews inmates as Dr. Scott interviewed Steven Truscott has, in all common decency, no right to make the kind of comments which Dr. Scott was reported to have made. I know that in subsequent statements reported in the newspapers he maintained that he had not made the original statement, but if he did it was wrong of him to do so.
If we are to break down the circle whereby people commit crimes, are apprehended, charged, tried, sentenced, sent to prison, serve their sentences and are released only to commit another crime, we must make a major breakthrough. Surely there has been enough experience in other jurisdictions to show how we can break out of this circle. One way is to have a professional staff to deal with those who get into trouble. We are not attracting professionals to our penal service simply because we do not really believe in having them. I know that the minister can say all the right things and the commissioner can speak of how they want such professionals but the fact is, as I have said before, that we do not back up our words with money. We do not provide grants with which to attract psychiatrists, psychologists and social workers to our institutions.
I have already said that one way of attracting these professionals is to give them training grants with the proviso that on completing their training they shall work in the institution which has given the grant. Though we may have had some professionals in the women's institution at Kingston, for example, the authorities make it clear that they do not really believe in the kind of work these people do. I will not repeat ad nauseam the testimony that some of these professionals gave before the parliamentary committee, but the former
June 26, 1S67

director, a psychologist and a social worker said they could not stay because the kind of work they wanted to do, the kind of approach they took toward the women inmates and their thinking on the problems of correction were being undermined by the person who had newly been put in charge. If they were right, and I believe they were, then certainly there needs to be a complete change in the organization of the correctional system. But we have heard not a word of this from the minister. I presume he is satisfied with what happened.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)


Lawrence T. Pennell: I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member because he was very courteous in allowing me to make my remarks without interruption. But the hon. member will recollect that six months after the previous superintendent had left-and I make no reflection at all on the previous superintendent-the hon. member for Vancouver East asked me to give an undertaking in the house that I would not remove any of the 21 inmates convicted of offences arising from drug addiction at Kingston penitentiary without their consent. I gave that undertaking. This was six months after the change in the administration. Eighteen of them asked that they should be allowed to remain at Kingston. We fulfilled that undertaking. I would merely point out that we have not abandoned many of the procedures which had been carried on there prior to the appointment of the present superintendent.


David Orlikow: I am not certain what that decision by the inmates themselves had to do with the treatment they were receiving. It may well be that the inmates find themselves happier and more at ease in an authoritarian institution where they know precisely what is expected from them, become accustomed to the discipline which is maintained and so on. It may be easier for inmates to accept orders without question while they are confined in an institution. But it does not follow that after they get out there will be any basic change in their outlook on life or that they will be less likely to get into trouble than they were when they committed the offence for which they were sent to the institution.
This is precisely the point which qualified people have been trying to make. I am not an expert in this field and I have never pretended to be. I wish, however, I could feel that the minister and his department were listening to and reading the submissions made to them by organizations which are staffed by the few

Supply-Solicitor General professionals we have in this country and whose boards comprise the people who are most interested in having the correctional system operate in a way as different as possible from the present system which has proved to be such a dismal failure.
I have in mind submissions made by organizations such as the Canadian Corrections Association, the John Howard Society and the Elizabeth Fry Society. I appreciate that this is not the first day upon which we are dealing with these estimates and that there is an agreement, to which I subscribe, that we should finish the business of the house, including consideration of these estimates, with reasonable dispatch. But surely the minister is aware of the representations which have been made to him by the Elizabeth Fry Society in connection with the women's institution at Kingston. I submit that the criticisms and the suggestions which were made have not been answered or followed by the minister or by anybody else in his department. Nothing in the situation has changed.
I shall not go into detail again because this ground has been covered many times not only by myself but by other hon. members including, I suppose, the minister himself before he became minister. I refer to those matters dealt with in the reports of the Archambault commission and the Fauteux commission. We must also be prepared to consider the recommendations which I hope will be made by the committee headed by Mr. Justice Ouimet.
I am disturbed at the speed with which the government is proceeding in its program of putting up buildings which will be with us, I suppose, if we go by past experience, for the next 100 years. The minister told us on June 6 that during this fiscal year three more medium security institutions for young offenders and selected male adults will be opened at Springhill, Nova Scotia, Warkworth, Ontario, and Drumheller, Alberta. He also said that provision has been made to establish five community release centres in various cities across Canada. Later he talked about the construction of four reception centres, one each in the Atlantic region, Quebec, Ontario and western Canada, and the purchase of a site for a new modern institution for the treatment of female offenders in eastern Canada.
Can the minister tell the committee how this building program squares with the memorandum presented to the Solicitor General on March 18, 1966 by a host of organizations interested in the question of correction? I will not read the whole of this impressive list but
1942	COMMONS
Supply-Solicitor General simply mention a few of the organizations involved: the Anglican Church of Canada; a number of the dioceses of the Roman Catholic Church; the Canadian Association of Social Workers; the Canadian Corrections Association; the Canadian Lutheran Council; the Elizabeth Fry Societies; the John Howard Societies, and so on. I could go on and on.
All these organizations have strong objections to the isolated location of many of the penitentiaries recently completed or now in course of construction. Has consideration been given to these representations which arise in part from the fact that it is difficult to obtain the services of properly qualified staff in locations so far removed from the main population centres? If there is a shortage of psychiatrists, as there is in this country, if there is a shortage of psychologists, as there is in this country, if there is a shortage of social workers, as there is in this country, and if these people have a choice as to employment, is the minister or his department surprised that these specialists should want to live where others in their field are living, in Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg, Edmonton or Vancouver? They do not want to live in the rural, small town areas where we have traditionally built our correctional institutions. If the minister really means business and would like to obtain the services of professional staff, is he giving consideration to this criticism which has been levelled at the building program and to these representations that we should build our institutions near the cities? If he has, I should like to hear from him.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
This group of organizations also talked about priority in building. The minister listened to their submission more than a year ago and he knows as well as I do that there is no connection between the priorities they suggested and the building program which the minister spoke of on June 6. Their first priority concerned reception and classification units. There is not a single reception and classification unit on the list which the minister gave.
I shall not go into detail again on the many objections to the horrible, terrible, mediaeval building which has been erected at St. Vincent de Paul, a building which is the shame of the government and the people of Canada. It was too late to stop its construction when this group made their submission but they did suggest that it be turned into a reception and classification unit. I would like to hear what the minister thinks about that.
DEBATES	June 26, 1967
Their second priority was medical and psychiatric units where people with special problems could receive treatment. I could cite case after case reported in newspapers in my own city of Winnipeg, in Montreal and Toronto, where people who committed crimes and appeared before magistrates and judges were sentenced to six months or a year in prison. In each case the magistrate in effect told the individual, "I know you are not going to get any help in the jail or penitentiary to which I am sending you. You will be just as bad or worse when you come out of it but I simply do not have any other place to send you." Sex offenders and other types of offenders who need special treatment are sent to regular correctional units where they tend to corrupt the other inmates.
Their third priority concerned maximum security units. I would like the minister to tell us what decision the government has made about the Millhaven unit. I have before me a letter dated May 18, 1967, copies of which were sent to all members of parliament by the president of the John Howard Society of Canada, Mr. A. B. Whitelaw. It includes a resolution which I want to put on the record:
Resolved that the John Howard Society of Canada go on record as approving the conclusions of the parliamentary committee condemning the design of the maximum security institutions and that we urge the government not to act on the recommendation of the penitentiary committee to proceed with the maximum security institution at Millhaven on the present design; but that we urge the government to find alternative methods of dealing with present population problems in the federal prisons, if such do exist, until a more acceptable design can be developed.
I would like to know from the minister whether that resolution is being considered by the government or whether, like all the other recommendations of this and other organizations, it is being ignored and is gathering dust in the files. If it is being ignored I wonder how long the minister expects the people interested in these organizations to continue their work.
This group of organizations also recommended that we get on with the job of special detention units. I have already mentioned what they think about the one we have built at Montreal. These are voluntary organizations and these are their recommendations with respect to a proper correctional program. Before we pass these estimates I would like to know what the minister proposes to do about them.
If we are to make any basic change in the situation it seems to me we have to look at the problem before people actually enter prisons,

June 26, 1967

correctional institutions, or whatever you want to call them. Some years ago I said that the federal government should consider cooperating with the provinces on basic steps that can be taken before a person goes to prison. The chief basic step revolves around the question of probation. I am not going to say I told you so, or quote the exact words, but I did suggest that the federal government should appropriate a fairly substantial amount of money to be offered to the provinces so that they could expand their probation facilities for those people who are brought before a court on a first offence, found guilty and, whenever possible, are given probation under proper supervision. The minister knows that in Great Britain, which has three times our population, the number of people in correctional institutions is only slightly larger than the number in such institutions in Canada. The reason is simple. For many years Great Britain has had a probation system under which first offenders usually do not go to prison.
In February of this year the Canadian Welfare Council submitted a brief to the minister headed, "Proposals For Development Of Probation in Canada." It contained 25 recommendations. The most important was the last and I want to put it on the record. It reads as follows:
That a national probation act be designed to develop uniform standards of probation practice throughout Canada; the said act to deal with.-
fa) The appointment of a probation consultant and such staff as shall be deemed necessary.
(b)	Grants to provinces for the operation of probation within any province.
(c)	The qualifications, duties and powers of probation officers.
(d)	The training of probation officers.
(e)	Any matter necessary or advisable to effectively carry out the intent and purpose of the act.
To me this recommendation makes a great deal of sense. It strikes at the root of the problem. Indeed, this whole brief comes up with solutions much more fundamental than any which have been considered to date by the government. I would like to know whether the minister is giving serious consideration to this brief.
Without a national probation system the kind of treatment a person who breaks the law gets depends not on the kind of crime he commits, something which would make sense, but to a large extent on where he commits the crime. Dr. Stuart Jaffrey, who was a professor at the University of Toronto until his death, wrote a book giving graphic examples of this problem. The most common offence in Canada
Supply

Solicitor General for which people are tried and convicted is theft. Professor Jaffrey had this to say:
An offender (who commits a theft) is three times as likely to receive suspended sentence in Manitoba as in Quebec; he is twice as likely to receive a fine rather than imprisonment. He is nearly twice as likely to go to jail for a short term in Quebec as in Canada generally, and more than three times as likely to go to jail as in Manitoba.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
More seriously, he is twice as likely to go to penitentiary in Quebec than in Canada generally, and three times as likely (to go to federal prison) as in Ontario or Alberta, and five times as likely as in British Columbia.
We on this side of the house are accused of doing a disservice to Canada when we suggest that Quebec is not a province like the other provinces. When we say that, the present Minister of Justice thinks we are doing a disservice to the country as a whole. I suggest that when it comes to crime and how it is dealt with in this country Quebec is a special province. It is different from all the other provinces because until very recently, it has had virtually no probation services. In addition, its judges are more likely not only to sentence people to penitentiary terms but also to longer terms in penitentiary. I have dealt with this matter before and it is not my intention to go into it in any detail today.
It seems obvious that if people in this country who break the law and commit offences are to be treated as Canadians the best thing the government can do is to adopt the recommendation of the Canadian Welfare Council that a national probation act be passed and and that the federal government share the cost of establishing nationally a modem, up to date probation system such as only the provinces of Ontario and British Columbia have at the present time. It seems to me that if the minister will address himself to this proposal and get to work on it he will do much to solve the problem in respect of correction and to reduce the number of people who are being sent to our institutions in greater and greater numbers from year to year. He would also be doing more to bring Canada up to the level of other countries than any minister has done up to the present time. I would hope that the minister would give me some answers to the questions I have raised.


Mr. Rynard:: Mr. Chairman, first of all I should like to congratulate the minister and say that he is the right man in the right place. He brings a sympathetic understanding which is so sadly needed in dealing with the people
June 26, 1967

Supply-Solicitor General in our prisons who come under his department.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Philip Bernard Rynard: I should like, however, to draw to his attention some things which to me appear to be anomalies. I will be as brief as I can. Let us consider the case of a person 18 or 19 years of age who has been stealing. I have a case in mind. This person stole something worth under $10. About a year later he stole something else valued at over $25. He was fined. After that he went straight. Later he was married. He now has a family and quite a responsible position. Approximately 25 years after his offence he ran up against the fact that he had been finger-printed and that his record was on file. This to me seems to be a very disturbing thing. I believe it runs counter to the fact that there is salvation; it is contrary to our Christian principles. It seems that it should be defined as to how long a person should have to suffer and bear the mark of a wrong he has committed.
The second case with which I should like to deal concerns a person who had been in Stony Mountain penitentiary for armed robbery. One day about noon he came into my office in this building. This was about ten days after he had been released from Stony Mountain penitentiary where he had been serving time for armed robbery. When he came into my office I noticed he had been drinking. He wanted some money. He had already tapped one of the gentlemen on the other side for a small amount, I believe. Perhaps he had tapped more than one, although I just heard of the one. The fact remains that he came to my office because he wanted someone to help tide him over for a week. I asked him whether he had been in touch with the John Howard Society, the employment service offices or the manpower offices. Apparently he had been released from Stony Mountain penitentiary without having received any guidance or help. He said to me: "There is only one thing facing me; either I get help or go out and hold up something". I do not know whether he had a gun. He said, "If I go out and hold up a bank or somebody, then I am back again in crime and in the penitentiary."
It seems to me there is something radically wrong with our system when we have situations like this where a person is not guided and helped to obtain a job. After all, he was in the penitentiary for over two years. It seems unfortunate that someone could not have watched over him, given him guidance, and helped him rehabilitate himself. The


longer a person is away from crime and following the straight road the easier it should be for him to remain on the straight road. This young man was only 28 years old. I do not know what eventually became of him, but I understand that that afternoon the police were looking for him. I bought him his dinner. I also called the employment service office and arranged for him to go down there. Surely there should be some agency to watch over such people when they leave the penitentiary. Surely more should be done in guidance in cases like these.
I am also concerned about the person who kills somebody, appears for trial, is found incompetent to stand trial on the ground that he is mentally unfit and is then sent to an institution for the criminally insane. He serves a certain length of time in the institution and then all at once the psychiatrists say that he is mentally sound. I believe he must then stand trial for his crime. I have in mind the case of a person who had been in an institution for a period of a few years and was then pronounced fit to stand trial. What concerns me is whether the time such a person spends in an institution for the criminally insane is included in his sentence if he receives one. I am concerned about what happens to these people. Are they followed up by a psychiatrist? I should like to know where justice enters the picture. Some of these people are brought before the courts and then sent to institutions for the criminally insane where they are treated. I should like to know what happens to them. Are they returned for trial and sentenced? It seems to me there is a great grey area in this respect. These are points which have been bothering me and which I felt I should bring to the attention of the minister because the follow-ups may be inadequate.


The Assistant Deputy Chairman:: Shall vote 1 carry?


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Chairman, at this time I might deal with some of the points which have been raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North and the hon. member for Simcoe East. The hon. member for Winnipeg North always bores in strongly upon the minister, but I do not take exception because I know he has a genuine interest in the field of reformation and penal reform.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, would the minister allow a few more representations before he speaks?


Lawrence T. Pennell: Yes.
June 26, 1967	COMMONS


John George Diefenbaker: It would save time going over these matters again. The minister is going to cover the entire picture and there are a number of matters I wish to bring to his attention briefly.


Lawrence T. Pennell: I would be pleased to yield the floor, Mr. Chairman.


John George Diefenbaker: I do not wish to delay the minister's reply, but possibly some of the questions I shall raise will enable the minister to answer at one and the same time. I shall deal with matters that are of immediate importance. The first has to do with the granting of the Queen's mercy on her visit to Canada. It has been the regular course over the years that a visit of Her Majesty the Queen or her predecessor the King has been accompanied by a general reduction in prison sentences or an amnesty.
This matter has been referred to on previous occasions and the answer given by the government has been that a parole system is in effect and therefore there is no reason for a general amnesty. I have been communicated with by several prisoners serving long sentences. In each of the four cases to which I wish to refer particularly they are model prisoners. The reduction of sentence by a matter of months would not be of particular interest to them in so far as their servitude is concerned, but it would amount to a recognition of the exercise of the authority of Her Majesty the Queen in a prerogative way and it would give new hope to these prisoners and thousands of others who are today incarcerated in our penitentiaries.
Few Canadians realize the degree to which crime has been expanding. I do not have the statistics before me but I recall that a year ago one and a half million offences of various kinds outside the field of traffic offences were committed. In respect of those offences there were some 500,000 convictions. Crime is mounting on every hand in the western world, in the United Kingdom and the United States. It is not crime in those fields where ordinarily one might expect an increase but rather it is across the board.
Everything that can possibly be done should be done to give hope to those who make a false step. I hope that even now, in so far as those prisoners are concerned who are not recidivists there will be the exercise of the Queen's mercy on the occasion of her visit. This course has been followed through the years. The failure to follow it this time will leave a feeling of resentment among the prisoners in the penal institutions. I would have
DEBATES	1945
Supply-Solicitor General asked that across the board consideration be given to this matter but because of the decision already made I am restricting it to those who have not been repeaters.
I ask for this consideration because some hope must be held out to those who have not repeated. This would be of advantage. It would carry on the general tradition of the amnesty that is granted on the occasion of such visitations. It would penalize none of those who have continued their life of crime by repetition, but those who have committed their first offence would be placed in an advantageous position in that there would be particular consideration given to them for not being repeaters.
I urge the minister to give consideration to my suggestion. He does not know the feeling in the penitentiaries of our country if he does not realize that, taken all in all, there is being engendered a feeling of remonstrance that is not conducive to that order and equanimity which should prevail in our penal institutions. I therefore ask for a reconsideration of this matter. We made parole regulations and changes during our administration. We advanced the whole field of correctional punishment and correctional institutions. But the adoption of parole in no way, except as a dialectic argument, can relieve the feelings of those in our institutions.
I have mentioned the question of crime. There has been an amazing increase in this field. I believe the United Kingdom is the only nation in the western world in which any diminution in crime has been shown, and the diminution last year compared with the previous year was insignificant. Crime is expanding everywhere. We have in Canada reports of the close connection with the underworld of leaders of the Mafia and other disreputable organizations from across the line. This brings me to my second suggestion.
The time is overdue for the appointment of a royal commission on the subject of crime, its incidence and a full public revelation of the degree to which master criminals find themselves allied with one another internationally. Such an investigation has been asked for by provincial attorneys general. The previous attorney general of the Lesage administration was strongly in favour of such a royal commission. There is support for my suggestion. The responsibility for investigation into the facets of crime rests on the federal parliament.
Royal commissions are appointed for everything under the sun. A royal commission on the subject of crime would pay dividends.
1946	COMMONS
Supply-Solicitor General Oftentimes the reports of royal commissions are treated in the same way as the report of the Carter commission. Royal commissions sit, recommend, and then there is deep discussion and consideration by governments for such a length of time that ultimately the report of the royal commission finds itself resting in the dust of some alcove used for storage purposes. A royal commission on crime could have the effect of mobilizing the thinking of people with regard to remedies and it would also bring to the attention of Canadians as a whole the serious nature of the expansion of crime. This expansion is disturbing. The parliament of the United Kingdom has gone into this matter very fully.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
One of the results of that action brings me to the third point I wish to make. I think we should give serious consideration to including in the Criminal Code a provision that first offenders, except in a very few and limited line of crimes, should not be imprisoned. That is the course of modern criminology. When I was first called to the bar many years ago punishment was regarded as a necessity and as the only means to meet the problem. With the passing years we have become more civilized in our attitudes toward criminology and toward the criminal. Although only 5 per cent of my time was taken up in defence, I followed certain rules that some lawyers do not follow. If a man has a just case, poverty should not be his passport to prison and he is entitled to what is characteristic of the British bar, namely, that the poorest can pick the best counsel provided the counsel is available at the time in question. I have never known a repeater among those for whom I have acted or those whom I have prosecuted. We are in a different position in the western provinces, apart from the great cities, from any other part of Canada in that regard. There are no criminal underground organizations in the smaller places in the country.
Are we to carry on the principles of the middle ages that have come down to the 1900's and are still considered by some the appropriate courses to follow to punish criminals? No. There has been a vast change. It has been found in the United Kingdom that with the exception, as I said a moment ago, of a limited series of crimes, first offenders should not be imprisoned and as a result recidivism has been greatly reduced. That is one of my reasons for asking for a royal commission and indeed pressing for it, because we are just doodling with this problem and while we doodle there is a mounting increase in crime.

DEBATES	June 26, 1967
This brings me to a fourth suggestion which I have pressed and which I hope will receive acceptance. After a man or woman has served a term in a penitentiary and has then lived a life free of crime for a period of five to ten years his or her record should be washed clear. When I was prime minister I received an application for a pardon. I have to be pretty general in referring to it because this man occupies a high position in our country. When he was 19 or 20 he committed an offence for which he was sent to the penitentiary. The years went by and he now occupies a position in which he does good not only for the people of our country but for humanity. Yet every time he wanted to cross the border into the United States to attend a convention he was asked whether he had ever committed a criminal offence. Honest straightforward and truthful as he was, he would say "yes" and was refused admission into the United States. I believe that men in that position deserve to have their records cleared.
I know this does not apply to any member of the house but all of us have had things happen to us in our lives as a result of which, if it had not been for good fortune or providential protection, we might have found ourselves before the courts. I know there is nobody in that position within sound of my voice but these things happen. Many people have been in the penitentiaries who have not committed any worse offences but they live to regret what they did. Punishment has been not only reformative but has been an eye-opener to them. They are doing everything they can to have their past forgotten by changing their mode of life. To hand this matter over for consideration by the committee on justice will not meet this problem. We know this is so.
The Department of Justice and the Solicitor General's department are full of experts, all of whom know this should be done. What would be finer than for the government between now and July 1-there is time for it because there would be general acceptance of such a measure-to bring in legislation to clear a person's record after a reasonable period and to do so as a centennial project for Canada? Have we none of the principles of forgiveness? Why attach a stigma forever to a person who has lived an honest life after having made one mistake?
We will have to start this on an experimental basis. I mentioned a period of from five to ten years. Some say ten years is too long, but let us try it out. We would be doing something in this parliament to elevate the hopes of
June 26, 1967	COMMONS
those Canadians who today walk about fearful that some time somewhere their past will be discovered. I followed that principle at the bar. On occasion I lost clients because I refused to cross-examine a witness who at one time had been convicted of a crime followed by a period of years of decent living. I was told to bring it out because it would be devastating. It may be devastating but it destroys the souls of men for no purpose. I urge the minister to bring in such legislation. Let him not follow the course of saying "we are looking into it" or "the matter is receiving consideration". This would be a very worth-while measure and has been proven to be such.
Finally, the R.C.M.P. needs no words of commendation from this house. I have known that body of men since the earliest days. I have been out in the west lately and saw the old homestead where we lived and where many mounted policemen, when they were called the Northwest Mounted Police, stayed with us as they went back and forth across the country. There are some of these oldtim-ers still around. I should like to see something done to assure them a reasonable retirement allowance, one not based on time spent in the force or on the lower pension rates of the past but one which would indicate to them our appreciation for what they did.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
I am not going to reminisce on this occasion. Many of these men were scions of aristocratic English families who came out here to serve. When the first world war broke out they returned to serve there. There were very few adventurers, very few soldiers of fortune, but there was an identification by the members of the old Northwest Mounted Police with the hopes and aspirations of those who left their country to establish a new way of life here. I should like to see something done for them now.
I am going to say something now with which you are not going to agree, but I say it in all sincerity. Today the Royal Canadian Mounted Police are losing some of the greatness and grandeur of their past because to a growing extent they are being used as traffic officers. I do not know what it is but there is something that grates about seeing mounted policemen on duty as traffic officers. The officers and men today are just as fine, but I believe the Royal Canadian Mounted Police is losing some of that aura, that attraction that came through years of service, when we see these officers on motorcycles trying to find traffic violators. Something is taken from the record of that force.
DEBATES	1947
Supply-Solicitor General
I knew members of the force who were in the original mounted police. I think of Sam Steele and Sergeant Dorion. I think he came from the hon. gentleman's constituency just outside Quebec. This was one time when the constituency really produced something worth while. I think of Pennefather and old Sam Donaldson, one of the originals.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: And assistant commissioner Caulkin.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, I could go on. There was something about these men. The spirit is there today as well. Turning them into city or town policemen to do traffic duty is not beneficial to the tradition of that force. I am wondering whether it would be possible to have another force within that force for traffic duties. I am going to deal with that on a later occasion.
When I think of what the mounted police have done in Canada I am reminded of the fact that we had no lawless west. When the Fort Bentonese came over to Her Majesty's dominion to whoop it up they came but once and then went back. I am reminded too of the mounted police corporal who met the Sioux who had massacred Custer. There were two or three colonels and a couple of hundred United States soldiers who brought the Sioux to the border where they were met by a Canadian corporal. The colonel said to the corporal, "Where are your men?" He said "I am here-I will take them." Some of them came to Prince Albert where they have lived ever since. There was an authority, a greatness about that force.
I am going to appeal to the minister because one thing he can do more than anything else is to remove these barnacles. This will give the force an opportunity to restore the greatness of the past. It will give the people of Canada an appreciation of the greatness of this force which was exemplified within the last few days by the death of a constable in Alberta.


John Ross Matheson: I do not intend to speak at length, Mr. Chairman, but I noticed that the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka suggested the parole board should give reasons for refusing to grant a parole. Of course, I appreciate the difficulties that have been alluded to by the minister, but I should like to state that this is a point I have heard raised on a variety of occasions, not only by people who have something to gain but by inmates or persons who have been discharged from institutions. They have indicated to me quite earnestly that it would have helped them at a
1948	COMMONS
Supply-Solicitor General certain stage if they had received some word of guidance rather than a categorical no, something which might have indicated in what fashion they could have redirected their own energies toward rehabilitation.
This point was made very forcefully by a group of some 16 inmates I visited recently in Joyceville with their chaplain, Mr. McDowell.
I am satisfied that there are many occasions when reasons cannot be given. On the other hand, I should like to urge the minister again, as I have within the last few weeks, that this matter be re-examined to ascertain whether it might not be possible in a good many cases for the parole board to furnish a man with some kind of helpful communication when refusing parole. This communication could be studied by the inmate, by one or two of his friends, members of his family or his chaplain or his warden. There always seems to be some person interested in the genuine welfare of each inmate. This communication might well be the basis for some reorientation which would make an early re-application for parole possible.
In some instances you just cannot tell a man about circumstances in his own home which perhaps militate against the wisdom of granting parole. Perhaps the reason may be that he should not return to Hamilton or Windsor, but if he could become re-established elsewhere in Halifax or Regina serious consideration could be given to parole. I know the minister has been thinking about these matters. I dare say he is not very easy in his own mind about this situation.
I do not believe we have ever had a minister who has more earnestly informed himself about a wide variety of the personal problems of the inmates than the present minister. I think he is disturbed about the fact only one out of three prisoners applies for parole. I have asked inmates the reason for this, and I have been told that of the two thirds of inmates who apply for parole approximately only one third are granted parole. Prisoners are pretty clever people and after a while learn what is taking place in the system as a Whole.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
I have been told-I do not know whether the minister can substantiate this-that of the one third who are granted parole, that is to say, after only one third of the inmates have applied for parole, two thirds of the applicants are granted parole for the very minimum period, the other one third being granted parole for the maximum period.

DEBATES	June 26, 1967
I happen to know a number of the members of the parole board. They are personal friends of mine and some have been so for many years longer than I have been in the house. Some friendships go back to prewar years. They are good and wise Canadians, much more informed on these matters than those of us who sit in the House of Commons. Yet I believe that once a member of the parole board accepts an appointment to the board he does not feel able any longer to take the same chances, the same risks, as he did before. It appears to me that something happens to a person who becomes a member of the parole board.
This is our centennial year, a year when new emphasis and direction have been given to penitentiary work, parole work generally and to the study of crime and punishment. I therefore think it appropriate to ask the minister to give very positive leadership in the months ahead in the sense of himself taking the risk. I am wondering what would happen if the minister asked the parole board to double the rate of parole failure. That is to say, in view of what has been said here today by eminent people from all parties, would the minister go to the parole board and ask them to increase the risk of failure to double what it is at the present time because the 80 per cent rate of recidivism is not nearly good enough and we should contrive to do better?
I would agree with the hon. member for Winnipeg North that the number of Canadians who are incarcerated is way out of line with the pattern of social behaviour in Canada compared with other democratic countries such as the United Kingdom, the United States and countries in northwestern Europe. Therefore I think it would be interesting to study the effect of parole cases being sharply increased.
I think the leadership in taking this step must come from the minister, and I know that this minister is capable of giving this leadership. I was pleased to hear the minister give a categorical undertaking when he was asked by the hon. member for Vancouver East for an assurance that the government would not proceed with the building of any more maximum security institutions of the present design following the completion of the institution at Millhaven. The minister said he was pleased to give that undertaking. He said that the ten-year plan which has been referred to us is subject to review. We now have reached the half way mark, which seems to be a reasonable time to review the program in light of
June 26, 1967	COMMONS
experience and our anticipated needs for the next five years.
I think we in Canada can rejoice in the fact that our crime rate is immensely better than that which prevails in either the United States or the United Kingdom. Great things are being done in this field. Personally I am more heartened by the level of interest and co-operation shown among the penitentiary service, the parole board and the manpower service. Indeed, if the minister were to get to his feet and recite some of the extraordinary successes known to him and in which he has played a personal part, all of us would have something to rejoice about as we approach our confederation day.
I have the feeling, Mr. Chairman, that this minister listens to suggestions and does not consider he knows everything. He entered the portfolio with a background of proven success in his own profession in the practice of law. Among members of the bar he was respected and loved. He could easily have taken over leadership in bar circles at different stages of his career but his natural modesty is such that he prefers to listen to others-and thank God he does. Having listened to advice from members of his own party, members of the opposition parties as well as from people outside the house who have given many years of their lives to this interesting and fascinating area of prisoner rehabilitation and reform, it seems to me that the minister is actually putting that advice into application. In the months ahead I think we will hear more exciting things than he is able to tell us about today. Perhaps that is enough said for the moment.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I was very interested in the speeches made this afternoon, particularly in the remarks about parole. I may have misunderstood the previous speaker but I understood him to say that he hoped the minister would double the percentage of paroles. It is my honest opinion that this is not possible.
I have been impressed by the fact that in Canada our parole system is such that the recidivism rate is about 10 or 11 per cent. If this rate were doubled to 20 or 22 per cent we would probably have to parole every person within the penitentiary system. If, however, the hon. member meant we should double the number of persons paroled each year, then I am completely in agreement with him. If we dispensed with parole boards and after a certain period of time automatically granted parole, I would suggest that not more than 20 to 22 per cent of those released would return.
DEBATES	1949
Supply-Solicitor General
I am not pleased with the functioning of the parole board. I believe the board totally fails to do what I should like to see it do. It is true that the parole board has been in existence for about ten years and that a number of very influential people have been members of it and have done some very good work. However, it appears to me that the board has recently been influenced by two bad cases.
I often receive letters which express the opinion that because of the nature of the offence committed and the newspaper coverage given to the case it is not in the interest of the general public to grant the prisoner parole. What are these people running for, parliament or municipal office? What do they believe their role to be? Are they engaging in a popularity contest? It is true that a mistake was made in the case of Dion; there is no question of that. But I think that the very opposite of what the hon. member for Leeds suggested is required. Paroles would have to be reduced by half regardless of the percentage which would return.
It is true that the nature of crime is changing. Sex offenders are turning their interest from little girls to little boys. But these are isolated cases, certainly not ones that can be handled by the normal penitentiary reform system. Most of our penitentiaries are not doing anything to reform prisoners.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
I have visited Collin's Bay and I was impressed with the machine shop and the school set-up. But what are we training the prisoners for? For jobs that do not exist, I suggest, for jobs such as tinsmithing. Our manpower service, which was training men for this occupation, has discontinued doing so as there are no longer jobs in tinsmithing.
We are scared to train our prisoners in the electronics field. They could be employed in that field. Here may I recount something of interest. I learned from talking to the warden at St. Vincent de Paul, that the inmates are not allowed transistor radios. The inmates once had such radios and it did not take them long to transform them into a communications system that covered the whole penitentiary. The public address system of the penitentiary was able to pick up transmissions from cell to cell and corridor to corridor. The ability of the prisoners was well demonstrated; they did what they did without experience. Yet we are not training them in this field.
I understood the minister to say that more people were paroled this year than ever
1950	COMMONS
Supply-Solicitor General before. That is true, but there are also more prisoners than ever before. The figures I have before me are for 1964. I am not an expert in the field and do not follow it closely. One finds that in 1960 2,505 prisoners were released. In 1962, after the unfortunate incident which brought about a total change in the penitentiary system, a change in ways of classifying prisoners and particularly in district board hearings and parole board hearings, that figure dropped to 1,800. By 1964 it was still only 1,852, almost 1,000 prisoners less than in 1960. Every year, however, we are probably adding 500 prisoners to the total. The percentage of those being released is much lower than previously. In some areas where these percentages have dropped action could be taken.
The National Parole Board report for 1965 shows two categories, one being those under 20 years old. In my opinion prisoners in that age group can be trained. At present they are delinquents, but the age of delinquency is increasing all the time. Ultimately anyone 35 or under will be regarded as a delinquent. The age of deliquency at one time was either 15 or 16 and under but it has now risen to 20 years.
I notice that only 15 per cent of paroles applied for were granted and that 14 per cent of those became parole violators. The parole board points out, of course, that paroles denied constituted 17 per cent and those deferred another 7 per cent. In all 24 per cent of those applying were not paroled. As I said, of those who automatically came up for parole only 15 per cent were released.
Another category of prisoner that the parole board deals with is those convicted of sex offences. In this instance the board has denied a total of 302 paroles, deferred 73 and granted 156. It is interesting to note that only 9 per cent of those applying for parole were successful. Of those, only 6 per cent became violators.
Under the category of forgery and false pretences one finds that 25 per cent of those paroled became violators. It is interesting to see that without help, except an occasional visit by the psychiatrist who works part time and sees more patients than he should, the sex offenders constitute a group in which only 6 per cent have violated their parole. Nevertheless, only 9 per cent of the applicants in that category received parole. Those interested in this field must see that steps are taken to correct what is wrong. We must not merely impose penalties.

DEBATES	June 26, 1967
The board, in refusing paroles because certain newspapers reported a brutal case, is being silly. To illustrate what I mean, may I cite the case of Gaston Nicholas which has been discussed in this house on previous occasions. Perhaps some hon. members cannot remember him so I shall repeat some of the facts. He was a young chap of 19 who went with his wife in a canoe on the Ottawa river not far from parliament hill. Like young fellows he was very much a smart-alec. He kept jumping in and out of the canoe until finally it upset. He was a poor swimmer and his wife could not swim at all. She did not make it to shore. The police investigated the case and termed the accident an accidental drowning. I looked into that case. In common with many other accused persons, this accused had a poor lawyer who has been promoted and is now a poor judge. In fact, he must be a lousy judge because he was a lousy lawyer.
Let me go into some details that were not drawn out in court. This young fellow had a couple of trucks. He worked in the steel plant where his father had worked in Hull, went to work every day, was highly respected and seemed well off. On having one child he decided to build a house and when he went to borrow money he found that the easiest way to do so would be by taking out a life insurance policy. He went to the insurance agent to take out the policy but found that he could not borrow money on it because he was under 21. He was 19 at that time. But his wife who was 18 could borrow money on a policy and the insurance was taken out on her life.
After the authorities had made a decision about the accident the insurance company decided that mischief was involved and the young chap was eventually charged with public mischief. Pie was sentenced to seven years and the lousy lawyer who later became a lousy judge did not even appeal the case. The young man went to prison and served most of the seven-year sentence. Around the time he was eligible for release a riot took place at St. Vincent de Paul in which he became involved. There is a difference of opinion about this matter, but I have read the evidence while others have not. It is my opinion that he was involved on the periphery of that riot and was not the leader. The leader of the riot has talked to me on many occasions and has indicated this was so.
The young man was again charged with public mischief and this time was sentenced to 14 years. The previous minister of justice reviewed that sentence and reduced it by seven years. The point is that that young man
June 26, 1967

was transferred from St. Vincent de Paul, where he had got into further difficulty, to Kingston where he got along fairly well. In my opinion, once he had been transferred to Kingston and had got along fairly well for a period of time he should have been released. But the parole board did not think so-good heavens, no. That would not satisfy the public.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
This young man is not too smart. There are many things he will never accomplish. On the other hand, the psychiatrists have indicated there are many things he will not do on the other side of the ledger. I have talked to the warden and to the classification officers. They say he is a person who becomes belligerent now and again. If the neighbour's dog were to come on his property he might kick the dog. I think this would describe some members of parliament too, but we get along fairly well.
The parole board cannot see this. They have to wait. What has happened to this man? After a while he went to work in a shop upholstering chairs. With the scraps that were left over he made himself a briefcase. Don't ask me why he did so. I could not find out. He was not going anywhere and he had nothing to put in it. But he made one out of scraps and the material he used was, of course, not his. So he was punished. The next time I heard about him he had been involved on the periphery of a sit-down strike which took place some time ago. Later I was informed he had decided to go back voluntarily into segregation and stay there until his sentence had been served when he would walk out.
If the parole board is content to allow this sort of thing it might as well jump into the lake. It did nothing to help this young lad at the time he was obviously worth helping. I remember offering to help supervise his parole and act as an adviser. My hon. friend from Skeena made a similar offer. I know he had a job waiting for him. We arranged a job with Dominion Steel who also believed he was worth helping. His mother and father were both good citizens. His mother scrubbed floors to keep the family going. But did the parole board consider these things? Good heavens, no.
If it is our intention to build more and more prisons we shall no doubt fill those prisons. But if the minister wants to do something constructive with regard to the parole board he will ensure that they pay attention to the recommendations of the classification officers and grant parole when these officers think 27053-1241
Supply-Solicitor General parole has a good chance of succeeding. Six months later the chances might be far less favourable.
Gaston Nicholas is not as good a risk for parole today as he was three years ago. I think even the stupidest member of the parole board would agree with that. Eventually, of course, they will let him out. I remember talking to a man serving his sentence at St. Vincent de Paul who told me: "I am due out in three months and you may be sure I shall do nothing to jeopardize my chance of getting out because when I do I am going to kill three people." If we are supposed to be protecting society, how can such things be allowed to happen? the parole board would say, of course, "We had nothing to do with it; the man's sentence ran out."
I know the Solicitor General fairly well. I have dealt with him on a number of occasions and found him to be an exceedingly competent person as well as most humane. I plead with him to make sure that the chance of parole is given to those who meet the requirements. Consider what it costs to build jails and staff them with custodians to look after people who are shut up with little opportunity of improving their situation. Then compare this with what it costs to provide parole officers and others in sufficient numbers to supervise parole properly. There is no doubt where the advantage lies.
I realize some people will take a different attitude. A number of chiefs of police told me some time ago that I was being soft on prisoners. What they want to do is collect their pound of flesh. They would like to see the stocks reintroduced. They would like to turn back the calendar for a century despite the fact that conditions today are not in the least comparable, in my opinion, because of the greater opportunities which are now available. I know the minister agrees personally with the view expressed by the hon. member for Leeds that there is need for an increase in the use made of the parole procedure.
Gaston Nicholas will eventually get out. He may serve every day of his seven-year sentence which in my opinion he did not deserve. The man who led that riot got one day. He is now free and to the best of my knowledge he is living a most respectable life. He has got married, and the last time I saw him he told me that after spending 27 years trying to beat society he had decided to join it. This man received a sentence of one day from Judge Wagner who as attorney general of Quebec was as tough as they come.
June 26, 1967

Supply

Solicitor General
If the parole board is to have any value at all its job must surely be to ease prisoners back into society and help them. If the chairman of the board wants to run a popularity contest, let him go to Hollywood or run for parliament or do something in a field where popularity counts. The people I am concerned about now will never vote for anyone in great numbers. There is need for a great service to be provided here and it is the responsibility of the board to give that service by helping in every way they can. If the board waits until a sentence has been served it does nothing except consent to a man's detention for a certain period of time.
As I say, Gaston Nicholas will get out eventually but had he been let out two years ago I am sure there would have been no trouble. He would have been assisted by a number of us who are interested in his case as well as by parole officers and others who are in a position to help. Now he is bitter. In my opinion he has been punished for things for which he was never really responsible and over which he did not have much control. He has returned to a place where he has separated himself voluntarily from society and as a result he appears to be a much poorer risk in terms of a return to civilian life. This is only one case which I could cite. I have referred to it a number of times on previous occasions.
I expect in the course of the coming year to make a point, if necessary, of destroying, if possible, the individuals who composed the parole board. I think I can find sufficient information in some of the instances which have come to my notice to provide the one thing they do not want, namely, publicity for the cases where they have failed. I am prepared to do this if it will bring about a complete change in the thinking of the parole board. I know some members of the board. There is one in particular for whom I have a great deal of respect. I do not know the other members of the parole board. I only know the decisions they have made.
# (5:40 p.m.)
I agree entirely with the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka that if an inmate automatically comes forward for parole and is refused without reason, this does him no good. In fact it does him considerable harm. He will sit and wonder about the situation and it will not help his chances of establishing himself again in society. Not all such prisoners will be violently resentful of the board's decision but you can imagine their feelings when, after learning from their classification officers and


padres that they are making good progress, they are refused parole without reason.
The percentage of those released on parole has fallen substantially since 1960. The figure is probably 20 per cent less now than in that year. This is the criterion we must consider. If we devised an automatic method of parole it would be like the procedure in the air force where, after a man has done certain things and spent a certain time in the service, he becomes an A.C.l without trying, then an A.C.
2 without trying and after a further period of time an L.A.C. without trying. In the services this has worked fairly well. Some people became corporals under that system and one such corporal even tried to run the world.
Let us not say we have a modern parole system. We do not. The people on the parole board are terrified of making a mistake but the kind of mistakes they make could happen anywhere. Today I got a telephone call from my son telling me of an accident in Alberta over the week end in which a mounted policeman was shot. A man was causing a disturbance. The policeman got out of his car at the spot and immediately was shot in the head with a 22 rifle. Did he have any way of knowing that the man was going to shoot him? Have we any way of telling that a man would commit that kind of crime?
Improvements have been made. Let us not sell short the former minister of justice who upgraded classification officers and other officials in the penitentiary service. Let us not sell short the commissioner of the penitentiary service who is trying to achieve an ideal situation, leaving aside for a minute the question of buildings and physical facilities. His qualification officers are able to evaluate prisoners much more efficiently than the average Joe on the street is evaluated in normal, everyday life.
I do not think the person who shot the policeman had a record or a history of insanity. But I point out that in our prisons the wardens very often can tell which prisoners will return to jail and how soon they will return. They have a fairly good record of evaluation, but above them is the parole board with greater powers. In my opinion this board is not carrying out the provisions of the Parole Act as I know them. It is not providing the proper supervision for people released into society. In effect it tells the worst offenders: We are not going to help you at all; when your time comes up you will be thrown out on the street without any kind of supervision or help.
June 26, 1967

A lew minutes ago the Leader of the Opposition spoke about the Queen's prerogative, whatever that may be. I plead ignorance but I do say that if all the prisoners in our penitentiaries were let out a third of them would ask to be readmitted immediately because they have become so used to institutional care that they do not want to take a chance on life outside prison. They are the type who throw rocks through windows the first time they get into difficulty and are happy to return to prison. One of the films recently shown under the auspices of the minister dealt with this type of individual.
The parole board should provide as much supervision as possible for parolees. When it refuses supervision, as it did in the case I have cited, it fails in its job and is negligent in its duty.


John Maxwell Roxburgh: Mr. Chairman, I would like to deal with a matter about which I spoke a year ago, on February 9, 1966, to be exact, when I introduced a notice of motion dealing with recompense for innocent people wrongly accused. As is the fate with most notices of motion it was talked out. However, at the time I said that as long as I remained a member of parliament I would do my utmost to have injustice rectified in respect of this matter. I believe this must be done and I am speaking again today in an endeavour to correct what is a dreadful injustice.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
It is absolutely unbelievable, and indeed deplorable, that our laws permit innocent people to be convicted who are later proven innocent and then released with no compensation of any kind. It is very hard to believe that innocent people can be kept in jail for weeks, months and, yes, even years, and then at the duration of their term, or at some period during their sentence, when they are proved to be completely innocent of the crime with which they were charged, be told by the courts of Canada: We are sorry for our mistake; you are now free to return to your old job if it is there or if your former employer will have you. You will have to work that much harder to try to make up your lost finances, your lost prestige, and your lost health, mental and otherwise, all because of our mistake-the mistake of the courts of Canada.
I ask, Mr. Chairman: Do laws which permit this type of thing to happen seem to belong to Canada? I am sure we all realize, despite the precautions taken by the public authorities,
Supply-Solicitor General that it is unavoidable that some innocent individual may unjustly become the object of criminal prosecution and thereby suffer loss. We realize that these things are bound to happen. However, the very existence of this risk implies that the public treasury should bear the responsibility for any such loss imposed by the machinery of the law.
Today, when our country is attempting to safeguard its citizens against losses caused by disease, disability, unemployment and many other misfortunes, it certainly goes without saying that the state should be liable for damages consequent upon wrongful accusation of a crime. It certainly would be manifestly inconsistent with the system of law if the state, which guarantees the individual against so many circumstances, should be excused from repairing the damage done by its own servants in the prosecution of wrongly accused persons. It is most unfair that a wrongly accused person should have to bear this loss. The prosecution should be brought at public risk and not at the risk of an innocent party.
It seems more reasonable that the loss should be borne by society than by the innocent person who has been accused. Apart from the matter of financial recompense, an award of compensation might do much toward rehabilitating the accused and freeing him from any suspicion which otherwise might rest upon him despite the acquittal or the dropping of the charges. It might also help in preventing the prosecution of innocent persons, because it is argued that provision for such liability compensation should lead to increased caution and in the long run to a decrease in the total damage.
There are many cases to which I might refer in order to illustrate my point. I shall mention, however, only one, the famous Canadian case of the kidnapping of John Labatt III some 30 years ago. The accused was sentenced to a term of 15 years. He was not the kidnapper. At the end of two years the man who actually did the kidnapping gave himself up. The kidnapper received a 12-year sentence. The original accused was given his freedom and went on his way to attempt to gain back what he had lost in society without having received any compensation from the government.
Many countries in the world award compensation to wrongly accused persons. In the period from 1886 to 1889 legislation of this kind was introduced in Norway, Sweden and Denmark. It was introduced in the United States of America in 1938. In addition, many
June 26. 1967

Supply-Solicitor General states within the union also have their own legislation to deal with such cases. These states include California, North and South Dakota, Illinois, New York and so on. Great Britain has paid compensation as far back as 1896.
I spoke on this subject a year ago and therefore I know the arguments which are made by the department. I fully realize that the officials of the Department of the Solicitor General and the Department of Justice will say that although the federal government has full jurisdiction over the Criminal Code the administration of criminal law is, nevertheless, in the hands of the provinces. So they will say: Why should the federal government pay for mistakes made by servants of the provinces? This, like the laws governing air and water pollution, highways and so on, is just another illustration of the great diversity in respect of jurisdiction under a federal system. The time has come, however, when this business of passing the responsibility from the federal authority to the provincial authority and from the provincial authority to the federal authority must stop, especially when we are dealing with the matter of compensation to innocent people.
The federal government can at least show its interest, sympathy and understanding by taking the lead in compensating innocent people who have been convicted in cases where the federal government has the sole right of jurisdiction, for example, in cases of counterfeiting, excise tax and income tax evasion, narcotics, and so on. This at least would be a start. Although the administration of the criminal laws comes under the jurisdiction of the provincial governments, I suggest that the federal government could give leadership by enacting legislation to make it possible for the federal government to pay say 50 per cent of the cost of compensation to innocent persons who have been convicted, provided the provinces do likewise. I feel very sure that if such a step should be taken no province which has a feeling for justice could refuse to take part in such a program.
I have a motion which has just been placed on the order paper, reading as follows:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should consider the advisability of introducing legislation to pay 50 per cent of the expenditures incurred by a province carrying out a system of indemnification which provides that where an accused person is eventually found not guilty, he may be paid his costs and expenses, and such compensation as a judge, in his discretion, may decide to be fit and proper in the circumstances.

I certainly hope that this motion will receive the support not only of the government but of every party in this house. I hope also that the government will see that this motion receives the priority it deserves. In this our centennial year we are doing a great deal. We are confronted with the Far East situation and the world situation, but here we have something which is right at home. If ever there was an injustice, it is right here in our own country where innocent people are not being properly dealt with. If the federal government were to take action in this regard it would be another of their "do good" jobs in this year of our centennial. It would be a good step to take.
In respect of the provision of compensation with regard to cases which come under the jurisdiction of the federal government and for which, therefore, the federal government is fully responsible, I would suggest that perhaps a fund could be established which would be administered by a board. I therefore ask the federal government, which is fully responsible in this matter, to set up a fund with a board to administer claims. This is only a suggestion. It may not be what some people believe should be done but something should be done in this regard. Canada just cannot allow this injustice to continue. I believe it is up to the federal government to take the initial step, not a faltering step but a strong one, so that working with the provinces we may do something to alleviate this terrible injustice.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)
I ask the minister to tell us when he sums up at the end of this debate whether he supports the idea of doing something for innocent persons convicted under federal jurisdiction. I should like a yes or no answer to that question. I ask the minister to work with the Minister of Justice in giving a lead to the provincial governments in order to bring about a better understanding of this matter and so the two levels of government may work together to alleviate this injustice.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. I must advise the hon. member that it is six o'clock. In order that the house may proceed to the consideration of private members' business, I do now leave the chair.


PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It is my duty, pursuant to provisional standing order 39A, to
June 26, 1967

inform the house that the questions to be considered at the time of adjournment tonight are as follows: The hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette), Les Etats Generaux du Canada frangais-attendance at; the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), Canada Labour (Safety) Code-proclamation of provisions; the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge), Water Resources-suggested study by engineering body.


Mr. Jim McNulty (Lincoln):: Mr. Speaker, the motion I am about to put has been discussed with the house leaders of all parties. By unanimous consent I move, seconded by the hon member for Chambly-Rouville (Mr. Pilon):
That the order for the second reading of Bill C-96. an act respecting observation and treatment of drug addicts, being order No. 90 under the heading "Public Bills" on today's order paper, be discharged and that the subject matter of the said bill be referred to the standing committee on justice and legal affairs.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motions.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Alberi) moved:: That the government should direct immediately that a committee of this house investigate generally the whole St. Lawrence waterway system, covering the area from the gulf of St. Lawrence to the head of the great lakes, and in particular to examine (a) the present debt structure of the St. Lawrence seaway authority and the adequacy of the tolls charged under the terms of the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority Act including the question whether there have been breaches of the said act in the method of fixing such tolls (b) the water levels of the entire system, including the effect of shipping in the port of Montreal (c) the serious navigational accidents in the St. Lawrence river and the changes in insurance rates (d) the danger of flooding in the St. Lawrence region and the relation of ice-breaking thereto (e) the effects, economic and otherwise, of the present or any projected development of the St. Lawrence waterway system as tending to destroy the transportation contribution role of the Atlantic provinces to the unity of confederation; and to make recommendations thereon and to report from time to time.
St. Lawrence Waterway System
He said: Sir, addressing you in your capacity as Mr. Deputy Speaker, my first words would be to thank you very much for reading my motion in those careful, well modulated tones that signify you come from the Atlantic provinces. I know that in so doing you and I will have invoked the sympathy of all members of the house for this resolution. Before beginning my brief introductory remarks I wish to say I regret to some extent that this motion concerning the St. Lawrence waterway system is coming before the house at this time. It has moved very quickly on the order paper. I notice that the hon. members from Halifax, for example, are not here. I am sure they would wish to associate themselves with this motion and it is regrettable that they are absent today.
One should place on the record the reason for their unfortunate absence. They are attending the naval review. As everyone knows, this will probably be our last naval review because the government has wiped out the navy; therefore we would all want these hon. members to be present on that occasion. However, I am fortified by the knowledge that I am to be joined in my motion by the hon. member for Colchester-Hants (Mr. Kennedy) who, while he does not speak very often in this house, speaks with great authority and responsibility. I think the hon. member for seconding this motion and indicating that he might back me up with a few words.
Having said that the timing of the introduction of this motion is unfortunate in that some hon. members are away from the house, I also regret that the time of the year is not conducive to the best press relations that might flow from my motion. We in the maritimes like this type of motion to be debated in the fall when we are looking for port business and when efforts are made by upper Canadians to keep the St. Lawrence open during the winter.
[DOT] <6:10 p.m.)
Having given the reasons for my regret at the timing of the debate on the motion, I add that one or two matters do make the motion topical at this time. I read in the Montreal Star of Saturday, June 17, just over a week ago, the announcement in flaming headlines that a $50 million program is to be introduced to improve the St. Lawrence. I do not know where this came from. It contains many items, and I suppose if I asked the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) he would have some way of explaining the different items. This gives me a chance to ask where we are going. I will remind the house that only a few
June 26, 1967

St. Lawrence Waterway System months ago the Canadian press uncovered a secret plan which would ensure winter access to Montreal through the St. Lawrence. To be fair, the minister brushed off in the house questions concerning it. However, all this make us in the maritimes wonder just where we are going with respect to the whole St. Lawrence waterway system in view of the fact that, according to my calculations, the expenditures now total $1 billion.
I have referred to this matter many times before. It has been brought up in the house in private members' resolutions such as this. I prepared a brief for the Atlantic Development Board and, along with other hon. members, have asked questions about this matter from time to time. This motion is an effort to be positive. In it we recognize a certain amount of progress. The situation in the port of Saint John and in the port of Halifax is desperate. It is true that we are now in the summer season. Our unemployment figures are higher than before. There is no construction work. I hope the house will take this as a serious plea for attention. I do not see how anyone can stand up and speak against what I am asking for in this motion. I am only requesting that the matter be referred to a committee.
I have dealt with five points. The first is to examine in committee the present debt structure of the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority and the adequacy of the tolls. We have been over this matter before. The minister indicated that it might have been considered in committee during the past year. New toll arrangements were worked out with the United States government and were announced in the house in the proper way, but the whole matter of the inadequacy of tolls deserves some attention. The minister himself has admitted many times that there is authority under the act and even an obligation to recover from shippers as far as possible all the costs of operation of the seaway, as in other forms of transport. We all know that Mr. Henderson, the Auditor General, has commented many times on the inadequacy of our method of collecting tolls and discharging the responsibility which parliament has under the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority Act. I quote the Auditor General's words in his 1966 report at page 175:
The extent by which revenues again fell short of meeting operating expenses, interest charges and provision for replacement of machinery and equipment in the Montreal-Lake Ontario section of the seaway is shown in the following summary-


I do not think the summary need be put on the record.
-of the operating results for the year compared with the preceding year together with the cumulative operating results from the opening of the seaway in 1950. It should be noted that the figures include no provision for repayment of the capital indebtedness of $326,700,000 in respect of the Montreal-Lake Ontario section which the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority Act requires to be paid out of earnings by December 31, 2009. If this obligation is to be met, revenues over the 44 years from 1966 to 2009 must average over $22 million annually on the basis of 1965 costs. The revenues for 1965 were $6 million short of meeting this requirement.
Then he went on to say:
Revenues on the Montreal-Lake Ontario section for the seven full navigation seasons the section has been open have amounted to $74 million compared to the $95 million which the tolls committees in 1958 anticipated would be earned during that period.
I want a full investigation by the committee of the ridiculous method of financing which we are using with respect to the St. Lawrence seaway tolls. If changes are necessary, let us make them in the proper way as intended by parliament.
Second, I want to know about the water levels of the entire system including the effect of shipping in the port of Montreal. Water is low and this is a hazard to navigation. What is the sense of continuing to spend money without knowing for sure what the water levels are going to be in the port of Montreal? They are down drastically which means that the big cargo ships cannot enter the port and we may be spending a lot of money for nothing.
The third point concerns the serious navigational accidents on the St. Lawrence. The minister keeps saying the matter is under consideration and the former acting minister of transport, who is now the Registrar General (Mr. Turner), has held meetings once or twice to try to deal with this problem. We have had our share of accidents. What is the reason for them? Perhaps the pilots are not as capable as they should be. If these problems are insurmountable, let us use the ports of Halifax and Saint John which have the proper facilities and good, experienced pilots who can do the job.
The fourth point deals with flooding in the St. Lawrence region. Every year that ice is broken the excuse is used that it is done to prevent flooding. If water levels are so low, how can flooding occur? When the ships break the ice in the fall we are told that it is done because of flooding, but the flooding does not start until the spring. It is all a
June 26, 1967

mystery to me and I should like it to be cleared up in a plain and simple fashion in the committee.
Lastly I would like to know the effects, economic and otherwise, of the present or any projected development of the St. Lawrence waterway system with relation to the promises that were made to the maritimes at the time of confederation. I have spoken about this before and I will not go over it now. All hon. members know that when the maritimes entered confederation-perhaps this is an appropriate year in which to consider this matter-promises were made that the ports of Halifax and Saint John would be used as the access ports to Canada.
A review was prepared by the Atlantic Development Board which suggested that $3 million should be paid in compensation. We have heard no more about it. The consultants' report on transportation in the maritimes has just been released but very little mention of the ports of Halifax and Saint John is made in it. The reason given for the fact that nothing is being done to help the ports of Halifax and Saint John is that it would be detrimental to the business which has been built up on the St. Lawrence. The whole purpose of the report has been lost. Consideration is being given now to the St. Lawrence instead of to the ports of Halifax and Saint John.
We want these problems recognized and we think a committee should be set up the same as is done every year in the United States. There have been no hearings on the St. Lawrence waterway system. I think this is owing to parliament and we have a duty to see that it is done. I ask that these willy-nilly $50 million expenditures be stopped. Legislation for the establishment of the seaway system was unanimously passed by parliament but so far as I am concerned it has been a $1 billion financial failure. Surely all hon. members will support me in this request.
[DOT] (6:20 p.m.)
I appreciate that there will be others who will want to participate in this debate, and I will listen to them. But, Mr. Speaker, being as fair-minded as possible, I do not understand how anybody can stand up in this house and oppose the very reasonable request for this committee which will give us the answers to these problems and help to justify this great undertaking to the Canadian people which, so far as I am concerned, is a billion dollar fiasco.
St. Lawrence Waterway System [Translation]


Mr. Georges C. Lachance (Lafontaine):: Mr. Speaker, we readily understand the reasons which prompted the hon. member for Saint John-Albert (Mr. Bell) to introduce this notice of motion to the house, and I believe that we should congratulate him, because the problem is very important and serious for the Atlantic region as well as for navigation on the whole St. Lawrence river, in the seaway and on the great lakes.
However, it must not be felt, as might be deducted from the observations of the hon. member for Saint John-Albert that, for this reason, the waterway system should be neglected, the requirements of progress be ignored or the use of shipping on the great St. Lawrence waterway be reduced, only to look after the Atlantic ports, for instance those of Saint John and Halifax. These are two specific problems requiring different solutions and, in the light of the figures and the studies that have been made, 1 think, Mr. Speaker, there is no reason to neglect one in favour of the other.
I have studied carefully the motion introduced by the hon. member for Saint John-Albert. He deals particularly with the financial structure of the St. Lawrence seaway authority, its debts and the adequacy or inadequacy of its tolls. He raises the question of water levels of the entire system, including the effect of shipping in the port of Montreal in particular. Furthermore, he suggests that an investigation be made on accidents and changes in insurance rates. In his opinion, the danger of flooding in the St. Lawrence region-he should have added also the danger of flooding in the port of Montreal-and its relation to ice-breaking should also be studied, as well as the economic effects of the development of the St. Lawrence seaway as tending to destroy the transportation role of the Atlantic provinces in the unity of confederation.
At the end, the hon. member adds a constitutional and political element to some very technical problems. As I said at the beginning, there is no reason why one of the problems should be neglected. These are two absolutely essential problems, neither of which should be neglected or overshadowed by the other. In my opinion the trend is irreversible and since the St. Lawrence seaway is becoming increasingly important, I do not see why steps could not be taken to help the ports of Halifax and Saint John and other ports in this region of the Atlantic provinces and to compensate for whatever losses may be incurred. There are
1958	COMMONS
St. Lawrence Waterway System undoubtedly losses in money and working hours, but unfortunately we can only take note thereof.
Not later than today, I read a press release dated May 15, 1964 on the effects of winter navigation on the St. Lawrence river and in the gulf of St. Lawrence on the Atlantic ports. Mr. MacKeigan, chairman of the Atlantic Development Board, said:
The Atlantic Development Board has been entrusted with investigating the impact oi winter navigation on the St. Lawrence river and in the gulf of St. Lawrence on Atlantic ports. That study was made by J. Kates and Associates and Gibbs, Underwood and McLellan; it was completed, as far as certain aspects are concerned, by the board's staff.
This report tells us in black and white that the ports of Saint John and Halifax have suffered, as a result of winter navigation on the St. Lawrence river, significant financial losses estimated, in 1963, I think, at 200,000 tons of freight corresponding to approximately $3 million in direct revenues for the ports and a loss of seasonal employment of about 3,600 men-months.
It is a very great loss. It is-as stated by the hon. member for Saint John-Albert (Mr. Bell) who spoke before me-a catastrophic situation. And, unless I am mistaken, that loss is increasing and would be due mainly to the fact that winter navigation on the St. Lawrence river is increasing. I do not believe, however, that the hon. member for Saint John-Albert can find statistics which enable us to believe that winter navigation has increased in the St. Lawrence seaway. As a matter of fact, everyone knows that during that period the seaway is closed for an average of two months. That is why I feel it would be advisable to put aside that matter of the repercussions of winter navigation on the St. Lawrence river and in the gulf of St. Lawrence, as far as the St. Lawrence seaway is concerned.
Mr. Speaker, I shall return to the seaway problem later on. With regard to winter navigation, up to now, ice-breakers, according to my information, have only protected the water level, especially by preventing ice jams and floods and not facilitated navigation directly. Of course, breaking up ice-jams and making a channel to let the ice flow more freely indirectly facilitates navigation on the St. Lawrence up to Montreal, although that navigation is rather limited in winter, specially in January and February.
As I have said before, the movement is irreversible. I cannot see very well how a

DEBATES	June 25, 1967
gate at the entrance of the gulf of St. Lawrence could be put up to prevent ships from going up the river to Montreal.
It seems to me that the two questions should be taken up separately, first, to see whether or not navigation facilities should be increased on the St. Lawrence and how this could be done depending on circumstances, and secondly what steps could be taken to make up for the losses in income incurred by the Atlantic provinces because of this state of affairs, that cannot be altered.
[DOT] (6:30 p.m.)
Now, Mr. Speaker, as I said before, a thorough survey has been made of the effects of river navigation on the Atlantic ports. I do not know whether a house committee would find other solutions or reach other conclusions, but perhaps recommendations could be made to the house. The government should certainly consider such recommendations seriously in order to take the necessary steps to solve those problems.
Now if we take the various items mentioned by the hon. member for Saint John-Albert in his notice of motion, we note that the first item deals with:
-the present debt structure of the St. Lawrence seaway authority and the adequacy of the tolls charged under the terms of the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority Act including the question whether there have been breaches of the said act in the method of fixing such tolls.
Mr. Speaker, I think that hon. members are perfectly aware that some public hearings were held in Ottawa in 1966, I believe, concerning the review of the tolls on the seaway. The United States seaway authority also held similar meetings in Chicago around the same date.
On June 30, the seaway authority submitted to the government its report on tolls. We know that the government did not see fit to increase them, which is questionable perhaps, Mr. Speaker, since it is a field related to economics or the financial structure. Unfortunately, I am no expert in either field, but I must say that I have never felt that those great waterways, those great works were designed to yield a profit to the country. In my opinion, those are public services that should be self-supporting as far as possible, at least as far as their administration is concerned. And I suggest that a serious study should be carried out in this field.
As for the amortization of the cost of developing the seaway, I have still greater doubts about the possibility that we may derive from
June 26, 1967

tolls, which are the main source of income of the seaway, enough money to pay the cost of that development.
There are members of the House of Commons who had the opportunity to take an active part in the development of that gigantic joint undertaking, although it was mainly Canadian, and as far as I could ascertain from these people, it was never envisaged that this undertaking should rapidly pay the cost of construction thereof out of its income.
However, I think that we should try to get, as much as possible, an adequate revenue to meet the normal administration expenses of that agency. Government agencies which cannot make ends meet are not an exception, and considering the scope of the project, which cost almost $1 billion, I would not say that the annual deficits shown by that undertaking seem disgraceful. I do not want to mention any agency in particular but I do not know of any which shows a profit or which even makes ends meet.
Mr. Speaker, I shall not labour the subject of navigation accidents and insurance rates. It is a fact that if aids to navigation are not adequate for winter navigation, on the St. Lawrence river, risks of accident are greater.
A decision will have to be made some day whether or not to mark out the channel with buoys, to take security measures on the river so as to make year around navigation possible. Obviously, without buoys, without beacons in winter time, in fact without the whole regular security system, accidents will multiply as navigation increases and insurance rates will go up too.
Now, I should like to come back to the flood hazard in the St. Lawrence area and its connection with icebreakers.
Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that, in Montreal, the water level problem is of immediate interest. On the other hand, we must admit that nature has provided all kinds of ways to lower the water level: temperature, precipitation, evaporation. Those are the natural factors which affect the water level. Human factors are also involved, such as consumption and deviation for the normal needs of the population, the economy and business firms.
[DOT] (6:40 p.m.)
In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, scientific methods should be used to forecast atmospheric conditions more accurately, so that we might take the necessary steps to conserve water.
St. Lawrence Waterway System
The government should give particular consideration to these problems, because of the increasing traffic on our waterways. Traffic on the St. Lawrence is creating many problems.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but the time allotted to him has expired.


Mr. C. F. Kennedy (Colchester-Hants):: Mr. Speaker, I am motivated to enter this debate by the excellent and reasonable wording of the notice of motion which has been put forward by the hon. member for Saint John-Albert (Mr. Bell). The hon. member made a reasonable appeal to the house for the government to give consideration to setting up a committee to study the matter outlined in the resolution.
Basically the resolution covers something that has plagued us in the Atlantic provinces for 100 years, since confederation, the matter of transportation. We recall vividly, particularly during this year, that one inducement held out to our people to join with other parts of the country was the undertaking that coast to coast rail transport facilities would be completed. Those facilities were completed, and that part of the obligation was fulfilled.
Over the years much has been done to eliminate the disadvantages of distance. Confederation perhaps eliminated our trading with other portions of the world, such as the West Indies, which we could reach with water transport. Modern technology has made transportation more efficient, though nothing has shortened distances. Travel time has been shortened, but cost, which is another element of transportation, has not been reduced. We are still in an awkward position in trading with the rest of Canada.
Since confederation many small factories in the Atlantic provinces have been bought by larger interests in central Canada, and our problem is that we have had to import manufactured goods from central Canada over long distances of rail lines. The products which we harvested from the sea and the forest, the raw products or semi-manufactured goods, also had to be transported vast distances to our favoured market of central Canada.
Goods manufactured in central Canada are sold all over the country. Cameras, for example, carry the same retail tag in all parts of the country. Yet when one buys an automobile in the Atlantic provinces he has to pay between $150 to $200 extra for freight
1960	COMMONS
St. Lawrence Waterway System charges. If cameras can be marketed at common retail prices in all parts of the country, automobiles also ought to be so marketed. Such marketing policy would help greatly our people in the far flung parts of the country. The cost would not amount to much and could be charged to those in central Canada.
I do not think anyone in the Atlantic provinces regrets the building of the St. Lawrence seaway complex of transportation, and recognizes it as a forward step to open up all the country. Without doubt it has been of great benefit to all parts of Canada, and it has been of some help to the Atlantic region. However, we in the Atlantic provinces have always been afraid of unemployment, and of losing during the winter months part of our transport business. Whether modern technology can open the seaway without additional cost to the country, I do not know. I doubt it. If that can be done, the costs involved should be borne by the carriers themselves. If they wish to pay the additional cost of breaking through the St. Lawrence ice, rather than tying up at a deep sea port and paying for the additional rail freight, that would be all right with us. We have developed the maxim that we live and that we will let the rest of the country live; and we expect the rest of the country to feel that way about us. We do not wish to impede general progress. When the rivers are closed for navigation any ships that wish to run the risk of entering closed waters should be prepared to pay for the costs of any assistance they might request if they become trapped during the winter. Even where flood control programs are inaugurated, with resultant benefits to ships, the ships using the waters in question should be obligated to pay toward the program, where it is felt that it is more beneficial to bring cargoes toward central Canada than to unload them at a deep sea port.
I do not come from a deep sea port city, but I know something of the railway system which serves such ports. The economy of our area has a great lift in the winter when heavy goods move from central Canada to our ports. Of course the stockpiling at those ports all the year round of goods to be shipped by sea also is good for us.
I will not labour my remarks. This notice of motion has merit. The economic structure of the seaway development should be carefully reviewed; we must make certain that it is amortized in such a way that those who use it will pay for it. It must not become a burden on the whole country. It must not be a charge on those who, through further development of

DEBATES	June 26, 1967
the seaway, would be deprived of their traditional rights to employment and a decent livelihood. c>
(6:50 p.m.)
Like the hon. member for Saint John-Albert (Mr. Bell), I commend this notice of motion to the house and hope that someone on the government side in the few minutes remaining to us will rise and accept our suggestion that this matter be placed before a committee, where experts can be called and all reasonable people could give their views and discuss the matter in the way in which mari-timers discuss all their problems.


Mr. D. R. Tolmie (Welland):: Mr. Speaker, as the member representing the Welland riding, and as one residing in Welland on the Welland canal, which is part of the seaway, I am naturally keenly interested in this motion.
I have a certain special knowledge concerning the St. Lawrence seaway authority. Let me say first that I am opposed to the idea that a parliamentary committee be formed to investigate the seaway authority, its policies and its operations. I am very much opposed to this for various reasons. In principle, I believe it would be wrong to do so; we would be setting a highly dangerous precedent if we were to set up special committees to investigate and probe into properly constituted independent bodies set up by the government so as to be free from political influence and able to conduct the nation's business with complete objectivity, divorced from both the direct and the indirect pressures of partisan politics.
This does not mean of course that the seaway authority, or any crown corporation, is a law unto itself, responsible to no higher authority. However, there are built in safeguards against irresponsible behaviour. The government knows full well that the courses of action followed by any such agencies will reflect on the image and reputation of the government itself. In consequence, any government is going to take exceptional care to ensure that those appointed to these boards are people of the highest calibre in terms of ability, integrity and common sense.
It must be remembered, too, that public opinion is still a strong factor in this country. It is very salutary for public bodies to realize that their actions are not beyond reproach, and that they are still answerable to the most powerful authority of all-an aroused, articulate and critical chorus of well directed public
June 26, 1967

opinion. An added factor with regard to the supervision of this particular authority is of course the existence of machinery by which the type of investigation envisaged in this motion could, if necessary, be carried out. I refer to the transport committee. There is no need to strike another committee; it would be completely redundant. I would remind hon. members also that in addition we have the undoubted right to delve into the structure, conduct and general policies of the authority in question during our consideration of the estimates of the Department of Transport.
There is a further point which should be taken into consideration. Even if the proposal to set up a special committee were acceptable, there are so many standing committees and special committees already in existence that the striking of any more would tax the resources of members, staff and facilities beyond our ability to cope with the situation. Moreover, our committees do not have available to them the trained personnel and research facilities they need in order to carry out a task such as the mover of this motion envisages.
As I indicated in my initial remarks, the concept of conducting parliamentary investigation into the operations of government-appointed boards, in the course of a general fishing expedition and in the absence of specific allegations of misconduct or inefficiency, is most dangerous. It would destroy the entire principle of setting up boards to conduct national business objectively in the interests of the entire nation without fear of regional pressure groups exerting veiled influence on the members of the boards concerned.
If we were to begin an investigation into the St. Lawrence seaway authority in the absence of any specific allegation or terms of reference, where would we stop? Would it not be logical, whenever a member felt strongly enough about a subject, to set up a parliamentary committee on the basis of an impression that a particular region was suffering-to investigate for example the Canadian National Railways, the Polymer Corporation, the Crown Assets Disposal Corporation, Air Canada or any other independently functioning government body?


Thomas Miller Bell: Would the hon. member not agree that when revenues are nearly $100 million short of expectations some sort of examination by somebody in parliament is warranted?


Donald Ross Tolmie: I would preface my answer by saying I can understand the concern of the

St. Lawrence Waterway System hon. member in relation to his own interest in the Atlantic region. My point is that if the question of the debt structure is sufficiently important it can very well be investigated by means already at our disposal. There is no need to set up a new committee.
Assuming for a moment that there is no objection in principle to the formation of such a committee as is proposed by the hon. member, what justification is there for investigating the operations of the seaway and the entire concept of this international waterway? Is there any reason to believe that the authority is not conducting its business with efficiency and imagination? As to the members of the authority themselves, may I say that through my dealings with them in connection with the Welland canal by-pass I state without hesitation that they are men of the highest integrity, that tfyey have discharged their heavy responsibilities well and that they work well in the community. As far as I am concerned, the composition of the board is excellent.
In my area, it seems that the authority is confronted with a conflict of interest. Its prime concern is to ensure that ships get through the canal as safely and as fast as possible. But communities such as Port Col-borne and Welland, which straddle the canal, are plagued by traffic congestion brought about by the raising of bridges across the waterway. Bridges are continually being raised, resulting in tremendous traffic repercussions. Naturally the adthority is under constant pressure to regulate its traffic so as to prevent, or at least minimize, the impact on the area. They have done so to the best of their ability, without failing to achieve their ultimate goal, that is, to get ships through the canal.
Tha Acting Speaker (Mr. Tardif): Order. The hour for the consideration of private members business has now expired, and the house will now resume the business which was interrupted at six o'clock.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Tardif in the chair.


[Stage Direction]
1. Departmental administration including administrative expenses of the committee on corrections plus such fees, salaries and expenses as may be approved by Treasury Board for members and the panel of consultants and staff named by the minister to advise and assist the committee, and grants as detailed in the estimates, $1,015,400.
June 26, 1967
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Solicitor General The Assistant Deputy Chairman: Order. Since it is seven o'clock the committee is suspended until eight o'clock and I do now leave the chair.
At seven o'clock the committee took recess.

AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. House again in committee of supply, estimates of the Department of the Solicitor General.


John Maxwell Roxburgh: Mr. Chairman, when the committee rose at six o'clock I asked the minister if he would support the idea of doing something for innocent persons convicted under federal jurisdiction, and also whether he would give his support, along with that of the Minister of Justice, toward working out something with the provinces that would do away with the present injustice.
When I spoke on my notice of motion last year a number of my colleagues in the house were in sympathy with my suggestion, but they were worried about the possibility of compensation being paid to persons through miscarriages of justice, or in certain cases to persons freed because of reasonable doubt, or someone acquitted on a new trial where a witness may have passed out of the picture. I just want to say as strongly as I can that under no circumstances whatever am I interested in such doubtful cases receiving recognition of any kind. All that I am requesting is that innocent persons-and I emphasize innocent persons; not doubtfully innocent but honestly innocent persons-who have been jailed and then found to be innocent be given some form of compensation.
Surely, Mr. Chairman, this is not asking too much in a country like ours that has advanced so far in helping people in every walk of life. Surely we can take a solid step forward in seeing to it that people who are convicted, and later proven innocent, receive some compensation to help them better themselves when they come out of prison.


Mr. Gilbert:: Mr. Chairman, there are two matters I would like to bring to the attention of the Solicitor General. The first is the problem of juvenile delinquency in Canada, and the second is the expungement or destruction of criminal records.
Back in 1961 the then minister of justice appointed a committee to study the problem of juvenile delinquency. The reason he did so
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Tardif).]
was the rapid increase in juvenile delinquency, and also the rapid growth in our population. Figures for 1961 show that 41 per cent of our population were 19 years of age or under, and the projection is that by 1970 this group will form at least 50 per cent of our population.
The committee worked hard for a period of four years, made an exhaustive study, and held consultations with provincial authorities on constitutional problems in order to prepare its report. That report was tabled in the house last year. Since that time no legislation has been introduced by the government. In fact there has been no action whatever.
Last April I had the opportunity to attend a conference on juvenile delinquency at lake Couchiching where 100 experts from the province of Ontario, mainly social workers, probation officers and interested laymen, studied four phases of the problem of juvenile delinquency. They studied the pre-court problem with regard to juvenile delinquency, the treatment subsequent to the judicial determination of delinquency, after care, the prevention. If there was anything I learned from that conference it was the determination of these people that action be taken in this field, and this is why I am bringing the matter to the attention of the Solicitor General.
It may be said by the Solicitor General that the legislation is not ready, but I urge on him favourable consideration of the recommendations in the committee's report which did not require any legislation. The first recommendation, as set forth at page 279 of the report is that there should be a youth and delinquency research and advisory centre set up. This type of centre would embody some of the things which are contained in this report. The recommendation is as follows:
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
We think that, in the beginning, a major federal government contribution could be made by the establishment, in the Department of Justice, of a youth and delinquency research and advisory centre. It should have representation from-or, at the least, liaison with-other federal departments concerned, notably the Department of National Health and Welfare and the Department of Labour. Initially the staff need not be a large one-possibly three or four informed persons. Ultimately it might expect to have a staff of ten or twelve, especially if it were to perform any useful consultative function.
The functions of the youth and delinquency research and advisory centre, as we see them, would be as follows:
(1) Research and co-ordination
(a)	to serve as a clearing house on research on delinquency and the many related areas which bear upon it;
June 26. 1967

(b)	to maintain liaison with provincial governments, and also to keep up with developments in other countries in the field;
(c)	to serve as a "secretariat" in relation to subsequent, more detailed studies that should follow-
And so on.
(d)	to provide for a biometrics function, collecting and analysing the data for a continuing epidemiological analysis of delinquency rates, types, distribution, and the like;
(e)	to assist, in conjunction with provincial, municipal and perhaps private agencies, in the organizing of workshops, institutes and seminars for the purpose of improving the channels of communication-
And so on.
(f) to serve as a review committee for the processing of applications for research grants, or as a resource body for any such review committee.
The second heading is consultative and advisory functions;
(a)	to develop standards, guides and instructional materials on various types of activities or services for delinquent young persons-
(b)	to provide a consultation service, consisting of a small staff of experts, in relation to the various areas outlined.
This is the first recommendation of the committee. It would require no legislation.
Second, they say that demonstration projects should be set up. On this subject the report states as follows:
The federal government can make another significant contribution by discussing with provincial authorities the possibility of federal funds being allocated for a number of demonstration projects relating to various aspects of delinquency prevention and control.
The third recommendation is the staff training requirement. The report reads as follows;
Finally, the federal government can assist greatly in the establishment of a staff training program. A modest beginning would require no more than an appropriation of funds to establish workshops, institutes, and seminars.
These are the three main items in the conclusions contained in that report. These are recommendations which would require no legislation.
The conference studied the 100 recommendations with regard to the four areas which apply to juvenile delinquents. I should like to ask the Solicitor General to give his full attention to this matter so that social workers, probation officer's and the other people who are concerned across the dominion can expect some action from the government with regard to this very important item.
Supply-Solicitor General
The second matter which I should like to refer to the Solicitor General is that of the expungement of criminal records. The committee on justice and legal affairs studied the bill that was presented by the hon. member for Welland. Members of this committee heard different witnesses concerning that bill and some of its shortcomings. The hon. member for Welland should be commended for his initiative in bringing forward this bill. I heard two witnesses in particular, one of whom was Mr. Kirkpatrick, the executive secretary of the John Howard Society, and the other, Mr. George Street, chairman of the National Parole Board. If there was anything in particular I gained from their evidence it was the fact that the pardon as we know it is of little assistance in wiping out a criminal conviction. Therefore we should see that any conditional pardon that is given contains words which in effect wipe out the previous convictions. At the moment the pardon does not contain such words. It has been suggested that words indicating that the person shall be deemed not to have committed the offence should be included in any conditional pardon.
The convictions which apply today really hurt a convicted person in three areas, those of employment, bonding jobs and travel. This afternoon we heard the Leader of the Opposition set forth some of his experiences concerning this problem. I should like to ask the Solicitor General to give full consideration to the use of the pardon in wiping out criminal convictions. There appears to be a little disagreement with regard to the period of time in which this should be permitted. Some persons say the period should be five years and others say that it should be ten. I think possibly the shorter period would give more encouragement to many of the persons concerned.
Along with any change which might take place concerning expungement of records, I think the Solicitor General should consult with the provincial authorities particularly in respect of the fair employment practices act. It is very easy to have a record expunged and then have a person faced with an employment application which contains the words, "Have you ever been convicted of a previous criminal offence?" Therefore it is very necessary that the Solicitor General consult with the provincial authorities in an effort to make sure that this provision is not contained in any application form.
This afternoon the Leader of the Opposition mentioned the problem of travel to the United States. One can appreciate the problem which
June 26, 1S67

Supply-Solicitor General arises when a person travelling from Canada to the United States is confronted with the question, "Have you ever been convicted of a criminal offence?" There is nothing we can do in respect of having the pardon contain words which would permit the person concerned to go to the United States. However, the Solicitor General and the Minister of Justice could speak to United States authorities about reciprocal legislation permitting these people to travel without any restriction. One of the things I should like the Solicitor General to do would be to take the initiative with regard to consulting with the United States authorities, to see whether it would be possible to have reciprocal legislation which would overcome this problem.
Another matter which I should like to bring to the attention of the Solicitor General is that which has to do with recidivism. Mr. Kirkpatrick stated that 44 per cent of recidivism is committed within the first six months of the release of a prisoner, that from 44 to 75 per cent is committed within the first year, and that from 75 per cent to 97 per cent is committed within the first two years. After a two year period recidivism almost passes out of the picture. This is the reason it is so important for us to grapple with and solve the problem within the first two years of the release of the prisoner.
I should like to ask the Solicitor General to comment first on the problem of juvenile delinquency and, second, to tell us what his attitude is concerning the expungement of criminal records and what recommendations he has in mind in this regard.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)


Alexander Bell Patterson: Mr. Chairman, there is only one matter I should like to raise this evening one that was discussed at length this afternoon. I am speaking of the matter of parole and the activities of the National Parole Board. I am sure we all realize the task that is faced by the National Parole Board in making decisions with respect to the cases brought before them. Some of these cases are probably more difficult than others, but I suppose that even the easiest case is not too easy to deal with. They all have their own particular problems and situations, and we can sympathize with the National Parole Board in the work it is attempting to do. There is considerable talk these days about "going soft" on criminals. Other people think society is hard on criminals. However, Mr. Chairman, I shall not discuss that particular aspect of the matter at this time.

I wish to bring just one matter to the attention of the minister. I believe this case emphasizes the importance of considering the human element in these problems and perhaps giving the benefit of the doubt in certain cases. I have here a brief that has been built up through correspondence. It concerns the work of the Mennonite central committee, an organization that is doing very fine work in various fields of activity. This organization is working in my own constituency and has established what is called a halfway house project. The objective of the project is to rehabilitate those who have broken the law; to provide means whereby they can be rehabilitated and assist in their own rehabilitation.
The case to which I refer concerns one of the Sons of Freedom who was incarcerated in Mountain Prison at Agassiz, British Columbia. I understand that about five brothers were sentenced. The youngest of them was paroled some time ago. The Mennonite central committee, in an endeavour to assist, contacted the family of one of these men and persuaded them to leave the camp which had been established just outside Mountain Prison. The committee persuaded the family to live in the community of Yarrow, British Columbia, in a home that had been provided by them. The family was looked after by the Mennonite central committee.
Representations were then made to try to effect the parole of the husband and father of this family. For some reason or other the parole board decided against the application. This took place back in August of last year, and I understand this man is still incarcerated. I believe this is a case that should receive very careful and special consideration. Here is an organization that on its own initiative went ahead and provided facilities for this family. They felt it would help to get the family away from the main body of this particular group, the Sons of Freedom, so they persuaded them to live elsewhere and endeavoured to reunite the family and provide the man with a job and proper supervision. They were prepared to assist in his rehabilitation. As I have pointed out, the National Parole Board ruled against the application and apparently it will not be renewed until 1968.
I bring this matter to the attention of the minister because I believe organizations such as this ought to be encouraged in this type of work. I believe also that if we can bring these families together, away from the ordinary environment in which they find themselves, it will assist tremendously in rehabilitation. I
June 26, 1967	COMMONS
will present the minister with the name of this person and family and will outline the brief to him. I trust he will give this matter careful consideration and see whether anything can be done to assist them.


Barry Mather: Mr. Chairman, I rise to ask a question rather than to make anything in the nature of a speech. I should like to ask the minister to consider, if he would, the reform of the bail system of Canada as proposed in my own bill, No. C-4, as well as several other places.
This bill is quite in line with legislation established last year in the United States. In brief, to quote from the explanatory notes of the proposed legislation, it would reform the present bail system in Canada as our American friends did about 12 months ago. It would effect this reform in the following way. The bill would assure that all persons, regardless of their financial status, should not needlessly be detained pending their appearance to answer charges under acts of the parliament of Canada, when detention served neither the ends of justice nor the public interest.
The measure I propose, and which I would ask the minister to consider, would permit poor people awaiting trial to be released without bond and would thus eliminate the arbitrary cruelty in the present bail system. It would permit them to be released without bond, in the absence of cash, having in mind certain other precautionary and amending steps. The present bail system requires that there shall be cash in all cases before bail can be granted.
The system of release without bail which would be established by the bill I propose would be limited to instances where the offence is not punishable by death or life imprisonment and in which the judge deems the defendent trustworthy. I would ask the minister to take into consideration the reform of the bail system in line with the general terms and principles of my proposal.


Mr. More:: First of all, Mr. Chairman, I should like to congratulate the minister on the presentation of his estimates. I have found him to be deeply interested in the problems that he faces in his department, and I have also found him most co-operative in dealing with questions that are raised by constituents and presented to him. I believe the evidence presented by hon. members today in the representations that have been made to the minister indicates the feeling amongst all
DEBATES	1965
Supply-Solicitor General members of the house, that they have a sympathetic ear to which to present vigorously the problems of people who come under the jurisdiction of the legal system. Hon. members know that tbe minister will give his best consideration to analysing their suggestions and incorporating those which seem to offer better hope in the future.
The ministers' co-operation in regard to settling the feelings of despair, perhaps, in regard to the changing picture of the R.C.M.P. establishment, especially in my constituency, was deeply appreciated. I know that the visit he undertook during the course of a busy schedule, and on rather short notice at the time, was well worth while and he made a good contribution to better understanding. For that we owe the minister our deepest thanks.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
I have listened to all the representations made today about those who run afoul of the law and are incarcerated. I shall not repeat the representations that have been made but I should like to bring to the attention of the minister one matter that bothers me. I confess that I am no expert in this field and perhaps do not know all the details I should know when bringing the matter to the minister's attention. I know it costs a great deal of money to keep a person in an institution, and sometimes when I see the small budgets of the John Howard and Elizabeth Fry societies as well as those of other agencies engaged in the work of fulfilling what seems to me to be a very pertinent and desirable service I wonder whether we should not look more deeply into the objective of rehabilitation and treatment of the inmates. It seems to me that the people who come out of prisons are virtually put out on the street and not a great deal is done to help them. Prisoners on parole often fall back into crime again. There is no doubt that often there is a great deal of co-operation being given by the families concerned to assist the parole board and other authorities. Paroles are being granted to prisoners so as to give them a fair chance to remain out of trouble and to fit them into society. There are also prisoners who serve their sentences without being paroled. It seems to me that very little is provided for them.
We all know the prejudice against anybody who has been in trouble with the law and who has served time. It is difficult for him to obtain employment and to rehabilitate himself. It costs us $3,000 or $4,000 a year to keep them in security and to try to instil in them a
June 26. 1967

Supply-Solicitor General desire to fit into society. It seems to me ridiculous that after having expended so much money on these people no further help is provided them.
Perhaps the minister could tell me where in the estimates grants to the John Howard or Elizabeth Fry societies are provided and on what basis these grants are established. Are they established on the basis of the previous year's case load and the contributions that have been made? We all know that these societies are continually upgrading their staff. They are obtaining professional staff and, as is emphasized in their reports, their caseloads demand an increased number of professional staff. Yet sufficient funds are not provided for them. I noticed in some reports that municipalities provide amounts ranging from $25 to $100 for that purpose, but on what basis is this done? I wonder if the minister could indicate to the house what part in his view these societies are expected to play. I should like him to explain to us on what basis they are provided with part of their budget to enable them to play their part efficiently and well.
That is the only point I wish to bring up, in addition to the various representations that have been made to the minister. I am quite impressed by the recommendation that first offenders in a great many cases should not be incarcerated. I agree that Parkinson's law seems to work in all stratas of society and if we build institutions we will fill them. However, if we develop a more enlightened attitude and help former prisoners to play their part in the community, and help them to stay out of trouble, we will not need to worry about building so many institutions and thus will achieve a net gain both in money saved and in a decrease in crime.
I know that the changing times have brought about an increase in the R.C.M.P. establishment. I do not need to relate again the historic significance of the force in my area and what it means to the community. I believe it is in fact a very desirable and suitable location for the work that is done there and for the courses that are being followed. I notice the minister in his opening statement on June 6 referred to an increase in the establishment from 9,500 to 11,000. This of course means that more trainees are being admitted and more work is being done in this regard.
He also referred to a new Canadian police college, and I wonder whether he has in mind a new building or a whole new establishment. If so, will this establishment be operated as a primary training centre at Regina? I know

that police courses have been held there for many years. I have been in contact with these people and I know that police forces from many countries have been drawn to that institution. I am acquainted with their methods of training, and if it is the minister's intention to enlarge the establishment, I am wholly in favour of it. In view of the mounting expenditures I do not expect a great deal of money to be provided in addition to the amounts already outlined, but I do hope priorities will be established so as to allow the opening of this college at Regina, and the continued training of the police force in its new sophisticated form so as to meet the necessary requirements.
The other matter to which I wish to refer concerns the museum at the Regina establishment. I think the minister has seen it and must realize that the quarters are not adequate. It has been a great tourist attraction. I believe the time has come when a permanent curator should be appointed and new quarters provided for the museum. This would provide considerable space for other activities of the force. I hope this matter will be given the necessary priority, and that the minister will be able to tell us that provision will be made for the museum and its exhibits in Regina city, and that priority is given for the establishment of new quarters and perhaps the appointment of a permanent curator so that this very desirable operation can be continued in the future.
Once again I want to thank the minister for his co-operation. I will listen with interest to the answers he will give to the numerous questions and representations which have been made during this debate.


Mrs. Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Chairman, I also would like first of all to express appreciation to the Solicitor General not only for the sympathetic way in which he has listened to the many representations which were made to him, but also for the interest he has shown for the new developments in Canadian penology and his desire to make still further improvements in this regard. This is why I should like to make this evening a special plea on behalf of an institution which is located in my riding and which is doing work for the entire province. I am referring to the Vancouver Halfway House, about which both the hon. member for Vancouver East and I have spoken. A little time ago we went to see the minister with regard to this project, and were very sympathetically received. The people at Halfway
June 26. 1967

House were hoping at that time that the minister would pay them a visit. My purpose tonight is to refresh the minister's memory a little bit and add some new facts to the story. I have been speaking with some of the people out there-in fact I just returned about an hour or so ago-and they are most anxious to have the minister look into this matter without delay.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
This is one of those experimental projects, of which we have had quite a few in Vancouver and some of which have worked out exceedingly well. I am thinking of one which was started under the aegis of the father of the hon. member for Vancouver East, when he was a member of the legislature. At that time he conceived the idea that a good many women who were being released from mental institutions needed a place to go in order to get re-established in ordinary life. A co-operative boarding house was established where they could stay until they found jobs for themselves and became acclimatized to the outside world. This project was frowned upon by a number of people in its initial stages, but eventually became such a success that the provincial government took it over.
This Halfway House in Vancouver is in somewhat the same category. It was started in 1965 by a number of people who were convinced that there was a need for a place for people who wanted to get rid of the drug habit, a place where they could be surrounded by a home atmosphere and where they could deal with this habit under carefully controlled conditions until they were rehabilitated. These people were encouraged to get a job as soon as they were able, preferably outside Vancouver since drugs were more easily available there. Vancouver of course is one of the worst drug centres in Canada.
Since the Vancouver Halfway House was begun in 1965, almost two years ago, over 400 persons have been in residence. A large percentage of these people have at some time been charged with an offence connected with drugs. Some of them of course have come straight from Oakalla, or the penitentiary, but no one is turned away, provided they indicate a desire to attempt withdrawal from the drug habit. In addition, some of these people are parolees. It is significant that the parole board, recognizing the value of the house, has taken a favourable view of it in relation to parolees.
I visited Halfway House at Christmastime. It is located just two blocks from where I live,
Supply-Solicitor General and I shall be going back regularly during the time the house is in recess this summer, if we get sufficient time off. I was most interested in what I saw there that afternoon. The people who are doing the work at the house are themselves in a more advanced stage of withdrawal from the drug. The directors are citizens of Vancouver from different walks of life. I believe there is a United Church minister on the board, as well as a former member of the legislature. A number of the directors have been in business, and it is rather significant that there are four registered physicians on the board of directors. This fact is of importance with regard to the prescribed doses of methadon, which is a withdrawal drug.
The directors have written a letter to the Minister of National Health and Welfare in which they state they are aware that the police forces, provincial and mounted police, have had many reservations about Halfway House. However, the attitude of these forces is changing for the better at the present time, and the directors are seeking an interview with the top officers of both police departments.
This work has been conducted, as well as it is possible to do, in one of the old houses in Vancouver. It is a very old, ramshackle house of the shingle type. These people are doing well, considering the limitations placed upon them by the place in which they work. It is very interesting to note that within the last two weeks seven people from Halfway House have found employment in various parts of the province, two of them in Vancouver and the other five outside the city. When I was there at Christmas I found they kept a very careful record of two things. They keep a careful record of the people who come in, the jobs they get and where they are located. They also keep a record of where every single tablet of that methadon drug goes. There is nothing to the objection raised by some people that this house is a place where methadon can be passed on to other people. They keep track of every single tablet, and I am assured it is used right in the house under the supervision of the prescribing doctors.
As proof of the fact this place is doing good work, I can cite the fact it is now the recipient of a grant of $1,000 per month from the city of Vancouver and the provincial government. The officials of Halfway House have to supply to the city of Vancouver and the provincial government a monthly medical statement and a monthly financial statement. Both the provincial government and the city therefore are
June 26/ 1967

Supply-Solicitor General satisfied this is a responsible organization which is doing a commendable job. Of course this organization is saving the city and provincial government a great deal of money by getting jobs for people who are in quite hopeless condition upon arrival there.
The point is that the board of directors need another establishment. They do not want to do away with the one they have now, because it is essential, but they want another place where they can put people who have partly withdrawn from the habit, in order to keep them for a longer time and keep them away from those in the early withdrawal stage. I can well understand the reason for this because the afternoon I was there at Christmastime someone who had been there for less than 24 hours had a complete seizure and was taken out to be dealt with by the people in the house. This crisis resulted from the beginning of withdrawal from drugs. I also saw the effect of this disaster on the inmates of the house. As a matter of fact, I felt it was having a very bad effect on the others who were a bit farther along with the withdrawal treatment. What a thing to witness, the terrible agonies of this man as he started withdrawing from the drug.
What the organization needs is help from the federal government. The people are prepared to do their share of work, but they need financial help. I understand they have approached both the Solicitor General and the Minister of National Health and Welfare with regard to obtaining new premises. There may be no hope that help in that particular form will be forthcoming. However, the directors do not care whether the help is in that form or in the form of cash.
In addition, I am quite sure they want the Solicitor General to visit the place. They are most anxious to have this piece of pioneer work succeed.
e (8:50 p.m.)
With regard to their relation to the Narcotic Foundation, there is some pull there. A great many people believe that all government efforts should go into the Narcotic Foundation, but I do not agree with that. That is a useful foundation and is doing excellent work. However, there is also a place for this much smaller, more intimate, homelike atmosphere where a great many people carrying on the work of treating addicts are themselves sufferers from the drug habit. They are curing themselves and carrying on the duties of the house, as well as carrying forward the cooperative efforts of the house.


At this stage I wish to make an appeal to both ministers-that is, if both of them are responsible for the awarding of grants. I suppose there is not much likelihood or danger of there being any overlapping, but I think that this is a good experimental move which should be carried on under the best possible control conditions. It is something which will be valuable and which, in the long run, I believe will save the taxpayers a great deal of money. In the short run it will save these people and their families from having lives which would hardly be worth living at all. Many of these people will once again be made self-sustaining and will become of real value to our community.


Mr. Allmand:: Mr. Chairman, I will be very brief; I have just a few points I want to bring to the attention of the minister.
My first point is with respect to preliminary inquiries. I should like to recommend to the minister that he give serious consideration to amending the Criminal Code to provide that all preliminary inquiries be held in camera. The purpose of the proposal is to protect the reputations of innocent people against whom charges are brought, but are dismissed at the preliminary inquiry.
There have been many cases of this in Montreal during recent years. I can think of several, but I am not going to mention the names of the people involved because they have had enough bad publicity as it is. These people have had charges brought against them, and the judge at the preliminary inquiry has dismissed the charges as being without any foundation whatever. However, as a result of the charges that were brought and the widespread publicity which accompanied them, the reputations of these people have been ruined to the extent that many of them cannot obtain jobs or cannot even continue to live in the districts in the city in which they have lived for years.
If at the preliminary inquiry there is found to be sufficient evidence to proceed to trial, then it is understandable that the trial should be held in public. However, I think that some serious consideration should be given to holding preliminary inquiries in camera. I believe that the bar association has endorsed this proposal, so it is not a proposal that has been put forward without due consideration being given to it.
I have two other brief points. I am not too sure whether they come under the jurisdiction of the minister but I shall mention them anyway. One is with respect to compensation for
June 26. 1967	COMMONS
the victims of crime. There is before the house a private member's motion on this subject. When it came before the house recently I spoke in favour of it. The matter was also brought up during the debate on capital punishment. Compensation boards of this sort have already been introduced in New Zealand and Great Britain, and I think they are very necessary.
Take for example crimes of violence, where the accused are convicted and sentenced to prison. There is no recourse to compensation for the persons who are the victims of such crimes. Since it is the duty of the state to protect the public against crime, if the state fails in its duty and a crime is committed then there should be some compensation to the victim. Often persons suffer from assault, rape or different types of injury, either to their persons or to their property, but there is no way to repair this damage. I think we should closely follow the experience in Great Britain and New Zealand and look into this question.
My last point relates to costs incurred by persons accused of crime. Again I think that if a person is accused of a crime but after preliminary inquiry the charge against him is dismissed, some reimbursement should be made of the costs incurred by the defendent, who must engage a lawyer and go to a lot of trouble to defend himself against a criminal suit. I cannot see why the costs should not be reimbursed, in the same way as when a per son successfully wins a suit in a civil case.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I put these three points to the minister. The first is that we should consider holding preliminary inquiries in camera; the second is that there should be some means to compensate the victims of crime, especially victims of crimes of violence; and third, we should consider some method by which the costs of an accused person who is found not guilty at preliminary inquiry should be reimbursed to him.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I shall be quite brief because I know the committee wants to conclude these estimates as soon as possible. First of all I wish to thank the minister for his promptness in attending to any matter that I have brought to his notice. I join with the other members of the opposition who have expressed their appreciation for his courtesy and have recognized his competence. I also wish to express my appreciation for his staff in general and, in particular, for the work of the parole board.
DEBATES	1969
Supply-Solicitor General
During my 22 years in this house I have had numerous occasions to refer matters to the parole board and to ask them to consider parole in given cases, under certain circumstances and so on. I must say that from my personal experience I have found that the board treated each case I brought to its attention in a very humane way, with an understanding of the circumstances surrounding it.
In that connection I am reminded of one occasion when I received a letter from a man who said that he was an ardent C.C.F. member and supporter, and who asked me whether I could get him paroled. He mentioned that he was all in favour of the Regina manifesto and the socialization of the banks. I went to see Mr. Ilsley and presented his case. I did not know the man in question or anything about him, but Mr. Ilsley said that he would look into it. About two weeks later he called me into his office and said: "Bert, there's no question that that chap is a really good C.C.F. supporter". So I replied: "What makes you say that?" "Well," he said, "he is in for his third bank robbery". I said: "Well, we will let it go at that".
I have had occasion to engage in voluminous correspondence with various people, particularly young people, in penitentiary for unfortunate offences. They like to feel that there is someone outside who thinks something of them, and this is particularly so if I know them. I know of two or three very unfortunate cases which arose as a result of association with persons who had no standards of decency whatever. I send them Hansard, having first marked it. They read it and write back to tell me what they think of the speeches that are made here, and so on.
I do not want to repeat what has been said so well previously today, but I do want to emphasize my support for all that has been said regarding the problems of the mentally ill who come within the clutches of the law and also with respect to the rehabilitation of those who are at present in penitentiary, particularly young people. As I have said before, I have had placed before me several cases of young people who committed very serious crimes just because they were with undesirable associates at the time, and were also perhaps intoxicated. I join with others for a more humane and understanding approach to personal problems created by a society that in certain instances is lacking, a standard of values. To that extent we are all partly responsible.
1970	COMMONS
Supply-Solicitor General [DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
I wish to say a few words about the officers and members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. 1 am informed that the commissioner is to retire at an early date to accept a position as parliamentary commissioner or ombudsman for the province of Alberta. This is pioneer legislation for Canada. I am sure the administration of this legislation will be followed closely by members of parliament and of provincial legislatures and by all who are interested in protecting the rights of the citizen in our increasingly complicated society. I am sure that his lengthy experience in the R.C.M.P. and his understanding of, shall I say, both sides of the coin so far as the administration of the law is concerned will stand him in good stead. This is a new position and presents the commissioner with a great opportunity for service to the public advantage. I am sure that everybody will watch the administration of this legislation with interest. I, with many others I am sure, join in wishing him continued good health and every success in all he undertakes to protect the rights of the Canadian people.
I wish to say a word or two about law enforcement officers. Unquestionably our law enforcement officers today have an increasingly difficult role. We live in an entirely different world from the one that many of us were brought up in. Many of the complications in our society today we were unaware of in our youth, or we thought that they did not exist. I must say at this point that I agree with the remarks of the leader of the official opposition when he referred to the histories of the Royal Northwest Mounted Police and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. To some extent, I also agree with his contentions, that the public's image of the force and its appreciation of the force has declined owing to the requirement that the force spend a good deal of time in dealing with traffic violations. I think there is some validity to that contention. Those duties have affected the image of the force -particularly its image with younger people, though other persons have also expressed that view.
On a number of occasions in recent years I have noticed the growing inhumanity nf man to man. Not long ago I was crossing an intersection in this city when a bus driver was driving through on the light. He had the right of way. No passenger was in the bus. Four men under the influence of liquor drove in front of this bus, and the bus driver dented their car in and pushed it along the tracks.
[Mr. Herridge.l
DEBATES	June 26, 1967
Possibly a dozen people who were on the corners at the time of the accident all disappeared. I then heard the men getting out of the car and saying that they were going to charge the bus driver with crossing against the light. I heard this going on, went over to the group and listened to the conversation for a minute or so. The men said they would lay a charge as soon as they could find a policeman. I then said to the bus driver: "If you want a defence, here is my card. I am willing to go into court and say what actually happened, because I saw it." As soon as I said that, the men got back into their car and drove off.
Members of the R.C.M.P., as all of us are, are human-Mr. Chairman, I am not actually a saint, although many people think I am- and therefore they make mistakes. From my experience, any complaints that I made to a senior officer or detachment head were immediately investigated, and where action was required to remedy the complaint, action was taken.
Less than six weeks ago a man dropped dead outside the entrance to the east block. Everybody hurried by. The man who was with him when he dropped appealed to those around him for help to carry the afflicted man. It was not known then that the man was dead. An appeal was made to help carry the man to the Chateau Laurier. In the end the friend had to leave the afflicted man lying on the sidewalk, go down to the Chateau and get some employees to help carry the man down to the Chateau. A situation of this kind is incredible; yet that sort of thing happens in the society in which we live. It would never have happened a few years ago. These incidents show the influences that are brought to bear on our young people. To some extent we are all guilty of the circumstances under which we live today.
In that connection may I conclude by reading a paragraph or two from an article headed "Let's Face It". It is a commentary by Barbara W. Tuchman, and has a further heading "The Missing Element-Moral Courage":
Of all the ills that our poor criticized, analysed, soeiologized society is heir to, the focal one, it seems to me, from which so much of our uneasiness and confusion derive, is the absence of standards. We are too unsure of ourselves to assert them, to stick by them, if necessary in the case of persons who occupy positions of authority, to impose them. We seem to be afflicted by a widespread and eroding reluctance to take any stand on any values, moral, behavioral or esthetic.
Everyone is afraid to call anything wrong, or vulgar, or fraudulent, or just bad taste or bad manners.
June 26, 1967

Then the article goes on:
Since then, the human species has been busy overbreeding, polluting the air, destroying the balance of nature and bungling in a variety of directions so it is no wonder that we have begun to doubt man's capacity for good judgment. It is hardly surprising that the self-confidence of the nineteenth century and its belief in human progress have been dissipated. "Every great civilization," said Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare John Gardner last year, "has been characterized by confidence in itself." At mid-twentieth century, the supply is low. As a result we tend to shy away from all judgments. We hesitate to label anything wrong and therefore hesitate to require the individual to bear moral responsibility for his acts ...
What it requires is courage-just a little, not very much-the courage to be independent and stand up for the standard of values one believes in. That kind of courage is the quality most conspicuously missing, I think, in current life.
I agree with many of the opinions held by the writer of the article.
In conclusion I wish to say this: Every one of us, in my opinion, has some personal responsibility for the maintenance of value standards, if democracy is to be maintained and improved.


David Vaughan Pugh: I will not take a minute, Mr. Chairman. May I ask the minister a question about the museum on the federal site at Battleford? It is connected with the Royal Northwest Mounted Police. It is a fine place and attracts many tourists. However, one part of the area could be improved. A graveyard is there, dating back to the revolution. I saw that some new stones had been erected, but there were also graves where it was impossible to read the names. Obviously the graves are of constables who served at that time. May I suggest that the graveyard be brought up "to date and made truly presentable? It is a wonderful site. This matter I suggest ought to be looked into right away.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)


Lawrence T. Pennell: My first and manifest duty is to express my appreciation of the very kind remarks which have been directed toward myself. I can only hope that I may be worthy of them in the months ahead.
It would be extremely difficult for me to deal with every detail which has been raised during this instructive and interesting debate, and if I should overlook any point I am sure hon. members will understand that it is through inadvertance, not by design. The hon. member for Okanagan Boundary raised an interesting point concerning the museum at Battleford. I am grateful to him for doing so,
Supply-Solicitor General because I think Canadians suffer from an underdeveloped sense of history. If the centennial year has done nothing more it has awakened us to the fact that we do have a history and a tradition which we ought to preserve. I undertake to look into this question of the museum and graveyard at Battleford.
The hon. member for Kootenay West put his finger on a very pertinent point. I endorse his statement that there is a real danger in Canada today that we may come to regard crime with apathy and indifference, looking upon it as a natural phenomenon.
The hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace raised three points. May I say to him, with respect, that I feel these fall more properly within the jurisdiction of the Minister of Justice, or under provincial jurisdiction. This does not of course detract from the importance of the points he raised.
The honourable and charming member for Vancouver-Kingsway is always difficult to resist when she is pleading a case. I acknowledge I have received a communication from Mr. Dixon, the secretary of the Vancouver Halfway House and confirm that I gave an undertaking to the hon. member and her friend from Vancouver East that I would visit Halfway House in Vancouver. I reaffirm that I will fulfil that commitment and I hope the hon. lady will be available to accompany me on my visit.


An hon. Member:: Go half way.


Lawrence T. Pennell: I feel that these voluntary agencies are playing an important part in the war against recidivism. The hon. member for Fraser Valley raised a point concerning parole. He will forgive me if I deal with it later when I have occasion to deal with the remarks made by the hon. member for Regina City and the hon. member for Simcoe East on the subject of parole, generally.
The hon. member for Regina City expressed concern as to the amount of assistance the government is giving to after-care agencies. Perhaps I might put on record the yardstick we use in this respect. The voluntary agencies are playing an important part in assisting the penitentiary service. Grants this year to recognized after care agencies will amount to $455,850, which represents an increase of approximately $70,000 over last year. These grants are awarded on the following basis. There are grants to cover expenses incurred by after care agencies in the supervision of inmates released on parole. These are at the rate of $9.50 per man month. Then there is a
June 26, 1967

Supply-Solicitor General grant to cover expenses incurred by agencies in providing rehabilitation services to inmates released at the end of their sentences; the cost of such services averages $25 per inmate. In addition, we make grants to cover expenditures by such agencies in providing services to inmates during their incarceration. The agencies agreed to provide these services at a conference held on October 1, 1964, and the estimated cost is $20 per inmate.
Finally, sums are being made available to assist the development of certain after care agencies, foundations and halfway houses concerned with helping inmates of penitentiaries find their way back to society. Included in the 1967-68 estimates is a special grant of $10,000 to St. Leonard's House at Windsor, Ontario, for capital purposes.
The hon. member for Regina City also asked some questions regarding the museum in Regina. I agree that this museum is an authentic piece of Canadiana worthy both of the city of Regina and of the R.C.M.P. I have had some discussions with the attorney-general of Saskatchewan concerning a new building for the museum, and while I am not in a position to give a definite commitment at this moment, I can say that I am very much interested. I am pursuing this matter, and as far as I am concerned I feel that this museum ought to be housed in new quarters.
As far as the new police college is concerned, I would point out that this college is intended for senior officers. We are committed to maintaining Regina as the centre of our basic training, and our long range plans include substantial expansion of the present facilities there for the training of recruits. But the police college is intended for senior officers in the force. Its location has not yet been announced; I hope I shall be in a position to make an announcement on this point in the very near future. This would be a supplement to the basic training centre in Regina.


Kenneth Hamill (Ken) More: I wish to ask the minister one question in connection with the courses for police officers which have gone on in Regina over the years. I know that members of city police and members of other police forces have attended them. Will these courses be continued in their present form at Regina or will the new college take them over? If it is intended to take them over, I urge that the new college be placed in Regina.


Lawrence T. Pennell: I apologize to the hon. member. I did not understand the full import of

his question. Perhaps I might explain the purpose of the new police college. It will be the centre of advanced courses for senior officers of the R.C.M.P. We shall continue to provide training for municipal police and other police forces in Regina. When they require a higher standard of training these officers will be invited to come to Ottawa.
The hon. member for New Westminster touched on a point that is close to my heart when he spoke of the need for a reform of the bail system. I have not yet forgotten an experience that I had when I was practising. I was called upon to defend a young man who had been arrested on a very serious charge. He had been held in prison for six months for the simple reason that he was unable to raise bail. When his trial was finally held he was found not guilty; it was clearly a case of mistaken identity. Due to the present system of bail arrangements this man, in my humble opinion, was kept unnecessarily in jail during a very hot summer. I know that the Minister of Justice is very much concerned with this important matter and at the present time the Ouimet committee, otherwise known as the Canadian Committee on Corrections, is studying this matter. On that committee is Mr. Arthur Martin, one of the foremost defence lawyers in Canada and I am satisfied, looking at the calibre of the members on that committee, that this matter of bail reform will be carefully scrutinized.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
The hon. member for Broadview speaking, if I may say so, with his usual moderation and good sense raised the very important problem of juvenile delinquency. The report, as I understand it, falls broadly into three parts. The first part is concerned with revision of the act. I can assure the hon. member that we now have two officials in the Department of the Solicitor General devoting full time to the revision of the act and I am hopeful that early in the fall we will have a draft amending bill ready, and be in a position to discuss it with the authorities in the provinces, who of course have a large stake in the problem of juvenile delinquency.
The second part of the report deals with the setting up of a youth and delinquency research centre. I am now at liberty to say that my colleagues in the cabinet have approved a memorandum I placed before them and we are now proceeding to set up this research and advisory centre. However, I must confess I am encountering some difficulty in securing the services of people we feel
June 26. 1967	COMMONS
are qualified to organize this new centre in the department.
The third part of the report falls into the field of co-operative federalism. This is a matter of providing financial assistance in fields which are primarily of provincial concern and provincial responsibility. However, we have set up an interdepartmental committee and this aspect of the report is also receiving attention.
The hon. member for Timiskaming made a strong plea for the granting of paroles, as did the hon. member for Leeds, and I am in full accord with the representations made by both hon. members so far as parole is concerned. I might add that I have made a similar plea on almost every occasion I have spoken in public since I assumed my present responsibilities.
I must point out that I respect the integrity and the independence of the parole board. We all realize that the parole board is not granted the luxury of hindsight, so every parole is an act of faith and vision. Members of the board spend many anxious hours considering every application. I think it only fair to put on the record on their behalf that in 1965 they reviewed 10,868 cases and 2,297 paroles were granted. In 1966 they considered 10,431 cases and granted 2,496 paroles. Therefore in 1965 and 1966 there was an increase not only in absolute terms in the number of paroles granted but also percentagewise in relation to the number of cases considered and the number of paroles granted.
I know the hon. member for Timiskaming will be much heartened by the fact that this year up to May 31 the parole board has granted 1,151 paroles as compared with 818 for the same period last year, an increase of 333. If the number of paroles granted continues at the present pace for the remainder of the year, the parole board will grant 3,000 paroles this year, a new high in the board's history. I am sure the hon. member will certainly approve this course of granting an increased number of paroles.


William Arnold Peters: Does not the minister agree that this is considerably below the percentage level of 1960? In other words, the board has not caught up to the level it had reached in 1960 when almost 3,000 paroles were granted and we had fewer inmates in prison. We are not going ahead. We are not reaching the 1960 percentage level. Does the minister not think we should be moving much faster than we are in this respect? I appreciate that we are moving pretty fast, but could he not advise
DEBATES	1973
Supply-Solicitor General the parole board to step up the number until the percentage is increased?


Lawrence T. Pennell: The hon. member for Timiskaming is quite right, Mr. Chairman. The number of paroles granted in 1960 was 2,525.
However, I believe his wish is being granted this year because, as I pointed out a moment ago, if the board continues at the present pace the number of paroles will reach 3,000. However, the hon. member and I are on common ground so far as paroles are concerned, and I am glad to have his support and the support of other hon. members in bringing to the attention of the parole board the need to grant more paroles.
As I have pointed out, the board is an independent body, as it should be, but I am satisfied that the appeals made in this chamber tonight will not fall on deaf ears. I should also like to put on record that in the estimates now before the committee we are seeking an additional $466,000 for the purpose of increasing the number of parole service officers. The board proposes to add 31 parole service officers in 1967-68 over the number employed in the previous year.
Turning now to the representations made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North, he quite properly asked what was happening to the submissions and briefs of the various voluntary agencies regarding the design of the maximum security institutions. I know the hon. member is aware of the fact that we set up an all party joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons and that these briefs were submitted to it. The committee examined, cross-examined and reexamined witnesses who appeared before it, and I have now decided to accept the report of the joint committee. It aired the matter throughly and I feel that it would be only reasonable and proper for me to accept its report, which I understand was unanimously approved.
The hon. member also put in a plea for an increase in probation. Again I welcome his support, for I have stated time and time again that it is my firm conviction that it is through non-institutionalized treatment that we are going to win this fight. I believe the war against crime must be joined before the inmate reaches the federal system. The majority of inmates in our federal institutions have been convicted at least once, and most of them at least twice, before they get into the federal correctional system, and it is late in the day then to begin to win the war against recidivism.
1974	COMMONS
Supply-Solicitor General
Of course, Mr. Chairman, the question of granting suspended sentences and the implementing of a probation system rests with the sentencing magistrates and judges, and is outside the jurisdiction and control of the Solicitor General and the Minister of Justice. However, I think that the plea being put forth by the hon. member for Winnipeg North and other hon. members is bearing fruit, because there are now approximately 500 fewer inmates in our federal institutions than there were at the same time two years ago. Although I am tempted to claim the credit for the penitentiary service, I feel in all honesty that the decline in the number of inmates in our institutions is due in part to the fact that the judges and magistrates are using probation more generously than they did a few years ago.


David Orlikow: Does the minister not agree with the submission made by the Canadian Corrections Association, from which I quoted, that judges and magistrates would use probation more frequently if there were more adequate probation services? Is the minister giving consideration to implementing the recommendation of that association that there be a national probation act and a national probation service financed jointly by the federal and provincial governments?
* (9:30 p.m.)


Lawrence T. Pennell: I think the hon. member for Winnipeg North raised a valid point when he stated he thought magistrates and judges would use probation more generously if there were more probation officers. I believe that to be correct, and I speak from experience in my own city of Brantford. As soon as a probation officer was brought in there the presiding magistrate began to place prisoners on probation more frequently.
We are providing more funds for parole officers. The amount this year is $460,000. The parole officers and the probation officers are working together; they assist each other. After all, I have to fight at the treasury table for moneys for the department, but the government has been very generous in this regard. I believe more money has been approved by the present government for the penitentiary service in this past year than in any other year in the history of the service. However, I agree with the hon. member that if we had more probation officers perhaps we could do a more effective job.
A short time ago, together with the Minister of National Health and Welfare, I had

DEBATES	June 26, 1967
the privilege of meeting a delegation representing the Canadian Mental Health Association. At that time, as I understood their brief, they advised me that we could expect that the demand for psychiatrists would continue to outrun the supply. The mental health association, however, was kind enough to suggest that they would send a member to meet with the officials of my department for the purpose of setting up a course of training for the correctional officers and chaplains. We are now planning a meeting for the purpose of setting up a new program.
The penitentiary service has also entered into agreements with several Canadian universities whereby internships are being set up which recognize penitentiary employment in respect of forensic psychiatry and psychology. Provision is being made this year to enlarge the correctional staff colleges in Ontario and to commence the construction of another staff college in British Columbia.
Perhaps now I might deal with the points raised by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition. He always makes a most interesting speech and he never is more eloquent or moving than when he is dealing with the case of those who, unfortunately, have lost their way for a little while in our society. He supported the recommendation of the highly respected member from Simcoe East with regard to the wiping out of records. This matter has exercised my mind for some months now. In my days at the bar I was very close to the subject. I think the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka put his finger on the real difficulty. Perhaps I might quote the hon. member:
I should like to conclude with a word about this proposed legislation concerning the wiping out of criminal records. The committee hearings were most useful, but the real problem was this: What would happen in the case of a person who was asked, in connection with an application for employment, for example, whether he had ever been convicted of a criminal offence? Even if the record of the offence had been wiped out, an answer is required-yes, or no.
This is the great difficulty. However, as I stated earlier in the course of this debate, this difficulty ought not to deter us from doing what we can to assist those who have made a conscientious effort to go straight. We should make every effort to reduce the area of injustice, no matter how small. My officials are still considering this problem and we intend to push forward and to do our very utmost.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Chairman, I assume the minister read all my remarks. I should like to ask him if the suggestion that a person could
June 26, 1967	COMMONS
only be asked a certain question has any validity. I should like to know whether there is anything wrong with this from a constitutional point of view. What I have in mind under the proposed legislation is that a person could only be asked, "Have you been convicted of an offence for which there has been no certificate granted under this act?" If such a course were adopted, would there by any objection to it of which the minister is aware? This in effect would limit the type of question which could be asked on a questionnaire in the same manner that a question concerning race is eliminated from a questionnaire under the Ontario human rights law.


Lawrence T. Pennell: I am sorry if I misinterpreted the remarks of the hon. member earlier. I believe the point raised by the hon. member is one which perhaps would come within provincial jurisdiction relating to civil rights. Perhaps it is one which should be raised at the next conference of the attorneys general.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Chairman, the reason I raised the question is that while I did make the remarks the minister has read, I also thought I had provided the answer.


Lawrence T. Pennell: This is so unusual in the house that it caught me by surprise and I apologize to the hon. member.
The right hon. Leader of the Opposition also suggested that consideration should be given to calling a royal commission on crime.
I should like to point out that I have devoted a major part of my opening statement to the subject of crime in Canada at the present time. I have read very carefully the proceedings of the hearings of the commission on crime that are going on now in Quebec. I wish to put on record that I have scarcely read a name that had not been raised during the discussions at the last attorneys general conference. I make this point to show the house that the attorneys general are alert to the grave challenge that crime poses to the quality of the Canadian society.
The hon. member for Simcoe East also raised a question about the unfortunates who leave the penitentiaries without parole and without help. I am sure he will be interested to know that in this year's estimates we are asking for approval to open five community control release centres. These centres will accept men who are in the late stages of their sentence. We will provide them with board, lodging, and counselling. They will go out
DEBATES	1975
Supply-Solicitor General into the community and try to gain employment. They will have a place to stay while they are getting adjusted again to society. We have been successful in obtaining a residence in Montreal and are seeking residences in Hamilton, Toronto and some of the other major centres. This is on an experimental basis, but we feel it is a step in the right direction. I am sure the hon. member for Simcoe East will give his approval.
The hon. member also brought to my attention the problem which arises when a person is charged, found unfit to stand trial, and subsequently found to be fit to stand trial. The question then arises what about the time such person has spent in the institution. Speaking from experience, I know that trial judges generally take into consideration when passing sentence the time spent in these institutions. I can also advise the hon. member that the parole board has power under the regulations, in respect of granting parole, to take into consideration the time spent in an institution pending sentence and trial. Therefore the board can deal with it not only in keeping with the letter of the law but also in the spirit of the law.
Mr. Chairman, I have dealt with as many points as have caught my eye. If I have overlooked any points, I apologize to the house.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)


John Maxwell Roxburgh: Mr. Chairman, I should like to direct a question to the minister. When I spoke on the question of compensation being paid to innocent persons I asked whether the minister would give his support in working with the provinces to arrive at some agreement between the provinces and the federal government to make sure that innocent people would receive compensation. I believe I also asked the minister whether he would support my suggestion in respect of cases which came under the jurisdiction of the federal government. I may have missed it, but I do not think the minister mentioned that point in his very fine resume of questions asked by hon. members.


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Chairman, I believe that this problem is, generally speaking, the responsibility of the provincial authorities. I know that the hon. member raised this point in the course of his speech. I would advise the committee that on the single occasion when it was brought to my attention that a person was held illegally in a federal institution, full restitution was made to that individual, to his
1976	COMMONS
Supply-Solicitor General satisfaction. I believe our actions on that occasion speak for the feelings of the minister and the department in this matter.


John Maxwell Roxburgh: The minister has referred to one case. I can give, not one case but a dozen in which restitution has not been made. There is no provision at the present time whereby these people can be compensated. Responsibility in this connection has been passed back and forth between the federal government and the provincial governments.
I agree that the provincial government is responsible for the administration of justice, but it is up to the federal government, under whose jurisdiction the criminal law falls, at least to take a step forward, not just in one case but in the many cases that have developed ever since there has been government in Canada.
I could quote a number of cases where this has happened. I gave the example of one case, that of John Labatt III, where this happened.
I mentioned this one case only because I felt that was all that was necessary. Somebody has to accept the responsibility in taking the lead as between the provincial and federal government. The lead must be taken in getting these two levels of government to work together. The responsibility must not be passed from one to the other. All I am asking as a member of parliament and a member of the party governing this country is that the minister and the Minister of Justice take some action to work with the provinces and say: We will pay 50 per cent if you will pay 50 per cent. We must get something going in this respect and not leave the responsibility with the provinces. I am only asking that the minister give his support to such an idea. All he has to do is say yes or no.


Lawrence T. Pennell: Naturally, Mr. Chairman, I would support any move that would bring relief to people who have suffered an injustice but I cannot-and I am sure the hon. member, who is a very good friend of mine, would on reflection not expect me to do so-stand here today and on a matter which I believe is primarily the responsibility of those who administer justice, namely the provincial authorities, commit my department or the government to granting relief. I have already put on record the fact that in every case in which we have a responsibility, we have discharged our responsibility.


John Maxwell Roxburgh: I am not asking the minister about that. All I am asking is that he take a step forward to get the provinces to do

DEBATES	June 26, 1967
something in this regard. Someone has to make a start. The criminal law comes under the jurisdiction of the federal government. As the minister has said, the administration of justice falls within the jurisdiction of the provinces. Would it not be nice if the federal government were to say: We will pass legislation which provides that if a man in the province of Ontario, the province of Quebec, the province of Prince Edward Island, or whatever the case may be, is wrongly accused and has been in jail for two years and then released, we the federal government will pay compensation to the extent of 50 per cent if the province will do likewise? There is not a province in the Dominion of Canada that could refuse such an offer. All I am asking the minister to do is take a step forward to see if legislation in this regard cannot be worked out. If anyone were to suggest that it would not be practical to work out legislation along these lines, I would point out that the provinces and the federal government work out all sorts of legislation at the present time. This is all I am asking in this instance. The minister is right in what he has just said, but all I ask is that the minister, his department and the Minister of Justice give their support in seeing whether something cannot be done to correct this injustice.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall vote No. 1 carry?


Mr. Monieiih:: Mr. Chairman, just before vote No. 1 passes I should like to ask the minister a question. I am a layman in this field, not being of the legal profession, but one thing has disturbed me. In his reply of a few moments ago the minister mentioned the case of an individual who was found not fit to stand trial and was subsequently found fit to do so. A legal interpretation may be involved in this question. I do not know whether I am asking for a legal opinion. I really do not know what I am asking for; but it has disturbed me to learn that this case concerned an individual who had committed murder. I refer specifically to a charge of murder. I know of a case where the individual had committed murder, was found unfit to stand trial, remained unfit for a period of some months, and subsequently was found fit to stand trial and was eventually convicted and hanged. I am not sure whether it is a matter of legal interpretation as to whether he was sane when he committed the crime, but there seems to me to be a hiatus here somewhere which I as a layman fail to understand.
June 26. 1967


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Chairman, I believe I recollect the case to which the hon. member has referred. Speaking from memory, immediately after the offence the accused was arraigned and at that time was found to be mentally unfit to stand trial. Apparently the shock of realizing what he had done deranged his mind. He was committed to an institution. Later, under treatment he recovered. He was brought back to court and charged. I believe the issue of his insanity at the time of the offence was put in issue before the judge and jury. Argument was submitted, expert witnesses were called, and the jury found he was fit to stand trial and that he was sane at the time of the commission of the offence. All the circumstances surrounding the case were thoroughly aired. I must, however, add this caveat, that I am speaking from memory and am not absolutely positive that we are speaking about the same case. But the facts seem very similar to those of a case in western Ontario possibly 10 years ago, or a little longer.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Chairman, I have a very short question. There is in Quebec an inquiry being conducted into the administration of justice. Could the minister tell the committee whether a federal observer is attending the sittings of this inquiry. I am sure many amendments to the Criminal Code will be recommended after the inquiry is concluded, and I wondered whether there was a federal observer to follow the inquiry.


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Chairman, I am not aware whether there is an officially appointed observer attending the hearings of this commission. I do know, however, that there have been conversations between counsel conducting the proceedings on behalf of the commission and my department. We have been co-operating with them in so far as inquiries have been made to the Department of the Solicitor General. I have no doubt that the findings of the commission will form part of the agenda at the next attorneys general conference.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)


John Gilbert: Mr. Chairman, I have one short question for the Solicitor General. I wonder whether we can expect any legislation in this session with regard to the abolition of capital punishment. We all know how concerned the Solicitor General is with this topic.


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Chairman, I am not in a position at this moment to give an answer to that question. I believe the Prime Minister

Supply-Solicitor General will make the announcement at the appropriate time.
5. Administration, operation and maintenance including compensation to discharged inmates permanently disabled while in penitentiaries, $42,472,300.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Correctional services-
10. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $28,310,000.
Alexander Bell Patterson: Mr. Chairman, under this vote on page 485 there is a breakdown of appropriations for construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment. I notice there is an item of $2,023,790 for the Pacific region. I wonder whether the minister could give us an indication of what this is for.


Lawrence T. Pennell: The appropriation calls for $2.6 million for the initial construction costs of reception centres which will be located in the Atlantic provinces, Quebec, Ontario and the western regions. There is also an appropriation of $1 million for the initial construction costs of medical centres in Quebec, Ontario and the western region. I believe the figure indicated by the hon. member is included in the total which I just mentioned.


Alexander Bell Patterson: Is part of this amount to cover the expenses in connection with a proposed institution at Mission? Over $2 million is to be spent in the Pacific region. I do not want to hold things up, but I am wondering if the minister has the answers.


Lawrence T. Pennell: I see by a nod from one of the officials in the gallery that the answer is "yes".


Alexander Bell Patterson: I appreciate that very much. I am glad the minister and the department recognize the new healing influence of the Fraser Valley environment in physical, mental, moral and spiritual matters. Recently the drug addiction centre was opened. Unfortunately the minister was not able to be there but the Postmaster General officiated. That was in my constituency. Now we appreciate the fact that an institution is to be erected at Mission, which also will provide services to those who need assistance. As I said, I do not wish to hold up the estimates now but I would like to have the information as to what type of building is being contemplated, its size and all the matters connected with it. If the minister could secure this information for me, not tonight but at any time in the near future, I would be very grateful to him.

June 26, 1967
Business of the House


James Ernest Pascoe: Mr. Chairman, I have a brief question on vote 10 which also applies to vote 15. Under vote 10 are included pensions to dependants of penitentiary personnel who lost their lives in the performance of duty. Under vote 15 the same item appears, namely pensions to families of members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police who have lost their lives while on duty. Could the minister indicate how they lost their lives? Was it in attacks by prison inmates and, in the case of the R.C.M.P., in the course of an arrest?


Lawrence T. Pennell: I do not have the details relating to all the cases. One case which comes to my mind involved a young constable killed in the course of duty. The offender is now standing trial charged with capital murder. In the penitentiary services I believe four guards were killed over the last six or seven years, and of course their pensions would be included in the vote referred to by the hon. member.


James Ernest Pascoe: I thank the minister. I wanted that information on a vote that is coming up a little later.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I rise for only a moment to ask the Solicitor General, for whom we in this house have a great deal of respect, to be a friend in court. As he knows, some of us are anxious that the recommendations of the special joint committee on the public service of Canada regarding the pensions of retired civil servants might be implemented very soon. I will remind him that the report, which was tabled on May 8, says clearly that the expression "civil servants" in the context of that report includes retired armed forces personnel and retired personnel of the R.C.M.P. The case of retired R.C.M.P. personnel was ably represented to us when we met in the committee, and our recommendation is that whatever is done be done for all three of these groups. I hope the minister will use his good offices in the cabinet to see that action is taken with respect to all of these groups within the next few days.


Lawrence T. Pennell: I wish to thank the hon. member for bringing this to my attention. I should add that the ex R.C.M.P. members also made a very strong submission to the minister.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
15. Administration, operation and maintenance, including grants as detailed in the estimates and authority, notwithstanding the Financial Administration Act, to spend revenue received during the year, $62,438,000.
Item agreed to.

20. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $9,860,000.
Item agreed to.
Herman Maxwell Batten: This completes the estimates of the Department of the Solicitor General.
Resolution considered in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.
* (10:00 p.m.)



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Starr:: I should like to ask the government house leader, Mr. Speaker, if he could give us some indication of the program for the balance of the week?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: We would like to deal tomorrow with some legislation beginning with the committee stage of the measure to amend the Canadian Citizenship Act, followed by the committee stage of the Cape Breton Development Corporation measure and third reading of the measure to revise the Interpretation Act. If those are completed tomorrow, we would then go on with the estimates of the Department of National Health and Welfare. Wednesday, we would continue with the estimates of the Department of National Health and Welfare. Thursday we would call the Department of National Revenue and the Department of Trade and Commerce, and on Friday the Department of Public Works. This is a tentative program, Mr. Speaker, and if there is any reason to alter it, I will inform the house at the first opportunity.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the house under provisional standing order 39A deemed to have been moved.

Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, the original concept of that movement which is called the Estates General of French Canada is quite commendable. It is a very pleasant idea to take stock of the French fact in the country, to make an analysis, as comprehensive as possible, of the position of the French speaking Canadians in the North American context, and to explore all the avenues likely to insure a maximum spread to that large and great community which gets
June 26. 1967

from the French language an essential dynamism.
The word therapy, many a time, proved to be the most detrimental pitfall for the interests of French-speaking Canadians. Excessive verbalism, useless logomachy have too many times held back worthwhile energies which could have been much more useful somewhere else. An all new Quebec lexicon, during the last few years, displayed the following words:	Associated States, independentism,
particular status, co-operative federalism, and so on-a new terminology which does not fail to kindle constitutional discussions which keep Quebec in a ferment.
The Estates General have taken upon themselves the mission of preventing a sterile selfsatisfaction in flatulent speeches so as to promote a deeper awareness of our national reality. They want to establish a common denominator. The protagonists of this initiative surely deserve the most respectful regard, and I would like to know to what extent the government is ready to give favourable consideration to this initiative.
Evidently, Mr. Speaker, I am conscious, for having taken part personally in its work, of that fact that the Estates General have run the risk of infiltration, but I think that since the elections of last April, a measure of success has been achieved in getting members whose objectivity has been proven.
Mr. Speaker, the federal government-and I am talking about the federal government as a whole, not on a partisan basis-has failed far too long to act like the government of all Canadians, and that explains to some extent the feeling of frustration which the provincial authorities express quite frequently.
I think that the federal authorities should show themselves as open-minded as possible to the aspirations of French Canada while, at the same time, seeing to it that a social order which benefits the Canadian community as a whole is respected.
Under the leadership of the present Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), a new climate has been created, our people are allowed to participate more actively in the administration of the country and the bicultural character of Canada is stressed more.
Federal authorities have a moral responsibility to clear up the political atmosphere and to stop this ideological trend that tends more and more to convince the younger generation of Quebeckers that to be in Ottawa is to render a disservice to French-speaking Canada.
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
There is no more obvious error than that, and I am happy to note to what extent the present Prime Minister has co-operated to remedy this situation. In fact, the more the federal authorities are open to French-Canadian aspirations, the more this will help to uproot this ideological trend which, to some extent, is apt to give an inferiority complex to those who have the heart and the courage to serve their country in the House of Commons.
That is why I ask the minister who was kind enough to remain, what will be the reaction of the federal authorities toward the initiative called the Estates General.


Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Minister of Justice: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member for Lot-biniere said, the Quebec caucus had the opportunity to look into the advisability of taking part in the meetings of the States General of Quebec by sending some delegates.
We have considered the problem at some length and we have finally concluded that political parties as such should not be rep-resentated within organizations such as the States General of French Canada.
Inasmuch as that organization, as pointed out by the hon. member for Lotbiniere, tends to replace word therapy by an awareness in depth, we can only congratulate those who take part in such activities.
But we were struck, Mr. Speaker, by the aspect mentioned by the member, namely that the States General are looking for a common denominator. And it occurred to us that those who are appointed by the people, on the federal as well as the provincial level, are the ones who constitute that common denominator. As you know, the historic origin of the States General dates back to a period, before the French revolution, when in that country universal suffrage was unknown and efforts were being made to find a formula whereby the population could express itself.
Well, we, as federal members, do not want to go back almost two hundred years.
We believe that universal franchise is a considerable advance of the human mind, that it is a political institution of very high value, because under it, representation is based on citizens as such and not as a member of one group or another.
And, for that reason, Mr. Speaker, we can wish godspeed to those participating in those meetings. But, as the Quebec caucus of the government side, we believe that, having
June 26, 1967
1980	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion been elected by universal franchise, we represent at the highest degree the wishes of the population in federal matters, in the same way as those elected at the provincial level represent the wishes of the population at the provincial level.

[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)



CANADA LABOUR (SAFETY) CODEPROCLAMATION OF REGULATIONS

Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, one week ago today, on Monday, June 19, as reported in Hansard at page 1657, I asked the Minister of Labour (Mr. Nicholson) when we might expect the regulations under the Canada Labour (Safety) Code to be proclaimed and the provisions of that act to be put into effect. I found it shocking to hear the minister reply that it would be the end of the year before we could count on these steps being taken. As a result I posted this question for a late show.
I notice that the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Labour is here to give the reply. I know that my hon. friend, the parliamentary secretary, is a man of many words, especially when his case is weak; but I want him to realize tonight that there is only one satisfactory answer to this question and that is that the timetable with respect to this matter will be stepped up.
The Canada Labour (Safety) Code, which is now on the statute books, was read for the first time in this house in July, 1966. It had been put through all stages, passed by both houses and given royal assent by December 21, 1966. The parliament secretary will recall that when we dealt with this matter in the House of Commons committee on labour and employment we were urged by the government to expedite the passage of this legislation. Members of the committee felt that two or three minor amendments should be made but we were persuaded by the minister and those associated with him not to press for these amendments because it would mean that the bill would have to return to the Senate, and that would cause delay. We were told that there was great desire and anxiety to put this legislation into effect, and that this would be done as soon as we passed it.
I remind the parliamentary secretary that this matter has been kicking around for a long time; it was around before this government came to power; it was around during the regime of the previous government which had a bill not unlike the one which was


finally passed. In other words, the Department of Labour has been working on this matter for a long time.
To be told therefore six months after the legislation has been passed that it will take another six months to bring it into effect is simply not good enough-especially when one realizes that the department's record with regard to the companion piece of legislation, the Canada Labour (Standards) Code, leaves much to be desired in terms of the many instances where the provisions of that act are not being enforced. It is not encouraging now to be told that the legislation being considered in this question will not be in effect for another six months.
The result is that those in railway shops and other places coming under federal labour jurisdiction, where there is no inspection on health or safety matters, because the provinces cannot come in and because the federal government has not entered the field, are wondering what is to happen and when something is to be done.
I said that this matter has been around for several years and dates back to the regime of the previous government. As the parliamentary secretary knows, the whole problem has been of concern to the Department of Labour and other departments for many years, indeed for several decades. I plead with the government to cease giving excuses about federal-provincial arrangements, and to cease telling us that the legislation will be implemented one year after it has been passed. From experience I know that when the government says it will take one year from the time legislation is passed to put it into effect, it will probably take two years, but there is no excuse for that kind of delay.
The government has been aware of this problem for a long time. I urge that action be taken in order that the provisions of this desirable legislation may be put into effect, so that employees in shops and factories under federal labour jurisdiction can have the benefit of this health and safety legislation without further delay.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The hon. gentleman who has just sat down said I had better make a long speech because my case was weak. I think I had better resume my seat immediately, because I do not think I have a weak case.
I have read the minister's words. He did not say "within some six months", but "some time before the end of the year" which according
June 26, 1967

to my interpretation can be at any time between now and the end of the year. I will not attempt to mislead the hon. member by trying to forecast precisely when the regulations will be completed. He did point out in a kindly way that it was the intention of the department to utilize as far as possible the facilities available in the provinces as part of a cooperative effort in order to provide proper safety standards and a minimum of jurisdictional problems.
I must remind the hon. member that, as he well knows, in the case of the shops there are at the present time available to employees and to unions the facilities of other departments of government. Eventually these will be transferred to the appropriate department, the Department of Labour, but it is not true that in the interval there are no regulations applicable to shops.
The Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) would be the first to move in connection with any flagrant case which smacked of unsafe practices. I can only say that the hon. gentleman has made a strong and eloquent case, one which I am sure the members of the Department of Labour will note tomorrow, and I will add my voice to his in urging that full effect be given to this desirable legislation as soon as possible.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member's speeches are more effective when they are short.



WATER RESOURCES-SUGGESTED STUDY BY ENGINEERING BODY

Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Strange as it may seem, our abundant water is the only natural resource we still control in Canada. Since the unfortunate signing of the Columbia river treaty there has been a great awakening of interest right across Canada in the question of our water reserves on the part of professional persons, conservation groups, trade unions, municipal councils and groups of various types, including the provincial governments and, finally, the federal government.
This is the one advantage we have gained from the signing of the Columbia river treaty-it has alerted Canadians to the situation which exists with respect to our water resources. There is a growing concern about the supply of our water resources and their ability to meet the needs of future generations.
On this account there has been a growing demand for a national water policy. We cannot have a national water policy until we 27053-126
DEBATES	1981
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion have a national inventory of our water resources, and this is why the Association of Consulting Engineers of Canada recently dealt at some length with this question and made a proposal to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources in this connection.
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)
It is for that reason, Mr. Speaker, that on June 23 I asked the following question:
Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. My question is based on a decision by an important group of Canadians who are concerned about Canada's natural resources. Has the minister received a brief from the Association of Consulting Engineers of Canada urging a 15 year study of Canada's water resources, estimated to cost about $200 million? If so, would the minister inform the house of his response to these interesting proposals?
Unfortunately at the time the question was not considered one of immediate urgency. So I have taken advantage of the late show to ask this question because I know a number of persons are interested to get the government's response to these proposals. I must compliment the association of consulting engineers, and say that I look forward with great inter-es to the minister's reply.


Hon. John N. Turner (Registrar General):: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to have the opportunity to spend the late evening hour with my good friend from Kootenay West. First I want to say that I appear on behalf of my colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Pepin) to reply to the hon. member's question.
Having sat with the hon. member for Kootenay West on the external affairs committee dealing with the Columbia river treaty some years ago, I know how vivid his interest is in water. I share with him the feeling that this is our most vital resource in this country. Of course I also want to say that I disagree fundamentally with him on his view of the Columbia river treaty, which I still interpret to be a good contractual arrangement between the United States and Canada-


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Bennett now agrees with me.


John Napier Turner: -with benefits to both sides, and of course concessions made by both sides as is necessitated by any contract.
The short answer to the hon. member's question is yes, the minister did receive a brief from the Association of Consulting Engineeers of Canada and he arranged for a
June 26. 1967

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion meeting with them. I am advised by my colleague that in substance he was in substantial agreement with that brief. The main proposal contained in the brief was that a major inventory of water should be made in Canada. My colleague informed the engineers that such an inventory was already under way and that he would consider some of the means they proposed in their methodology.
As the hon. member undoubtedly knows, the association also proposed a Canadian water commission. My colleague replied that there was certain constitutional difficulty standing in the way, but he would also consider that. I think my own views are well known to the hon. member. I believe that we must have an inventory of our water supplies. We must find out what we need. I once said, at the risk of sounding un-Canadian, that for a change it would be useful to have facts before we had policy. I reiterate that here.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: 1 agree.


John Napier Turner: I think we should also make a survey of what our growth will be in order that we can assess what our use for water will be in the foreseeable future. This of course would be essential before we would be
in a position to undertake any negotiations -if we agreed to undertake negotiations with the United States-because we would have to know what we have and what we would need. I would also put on record that in my view continentalism should not be part of the Canadian vocabulary.
I think the hon. member will agree with me. We are not only dealing with water quantity, the amount of water we have, but with water quality and water management. Of course the hon. member's views about pollution are well known and I applaud him for that interest, as I have done previously in the past. I think that despite the lack of clarity in the B.N.A. Act as to the respective jurisdictions of the federal government and of the provinces over water we should continue, as I think my colleague has done, to show leadership and initiative in this very strong national priority.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.27 p.m.
[The following items were passed in Committee of Supply this day:]



DEPARTMENT OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

[Stage Direction]
1, 5, 10, 15, 20
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, June 27, 1967