1970-05-12

STATEMENT BY MR. SPEAKER ON DISTURBANCE IN GALLERIES

Mr. Speaker:: 

PRIVILEGE


Mr. Ambrose Hubert Peddle (Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege concerning the matter to which Your Honour has already referred. It is a personal question of privilege-or is it a question of personal privilege-arising out of the abuse of the privileges of this House which occurred in the galleries of the House yesterday and which was only controlled when Your Honour adjourned the House.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)
I am informed that certain of these persons who created the disturbance were admitted to the members' galleries by the security guards on presenting admission cards purporting to bear my signature. If I had, in fact, signed these cards I would be in part responsible to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the House for the conduct of these persons in abusing the privileges of the House. I assure you, Sir, and I assure the members of the House that I did not sign these cards. My name was signed to these cards without my authority, and my signature was in each instance forged.
Forgery is a crime, and this House has never intruded its authority into the administration of the criminal law. It has properly left the investigation of crime and the prosecution of crime to the police-municipal, provincial and federal as the case may be. Forgery is a crime under the Criminal Code and is within the jurisdiction of the RCMP. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I advise you of my intention to report the forgery of my name in these instances to the RCMP, and to request the RCMP to investigate the circumstances under which, and by whom, my name was forged.
Undoubtedly, Sir, the RCMP officers will have to ask the assistance of yourself, Mr. Speaker, in the interrogation of officers and employees of this House who are under your
May 12, 1970

Procedure and Organization direction, and for this reason I consider it my duty and a matter of courtesy to you to inform you of my intention.



MR. CULLEN-FORGERY OF SIGNATURE ON PASSES TO MEMBERS' GALLERY

Mr. Jack Cullen (Sarnia):: As was the case with the previous speaker, Mr. Speaker, my name was also used. You have indicated that these were clear forgeries. I do not think we should over-react to this incident. I believe it has been blown out of proportion and these women have been given more publicity than they warranted. For that reason, and also because your statement, Mr. Speaker, makes it clear that my name was forged, I will let the matter rest there.



MR. RITCHIE-FORGERY OF SIGNATURE ON PASSES TO MEMBERS' GALLERY

Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: On a question of personal privilege, Mr. Speaker, like my seatmate, the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador, two passes were used yesterday on which my signature was forged. They did not come from my office, nor was I in any way connected with them.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, there has been some concern expressed in various quarters of the House about the question of security in the galleries of the House. It seems that it might be appropriate to give a committee of the House an opportunity to examine this question over some length of time. If this is agreeable I would like to suggest a motion in the following terms:
That the question of measures to be taken to ensure the security of the galleries of the House be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization.
If there is unanimous consent, perhaps that could be made an order of the House.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the proposed motion. Is it unanimously agreed that this matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
IMr. Peddle.]


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask
the Minister of Finance whether the announced reduction in the bank rate of the Bank of Canada is intended to have the effect of reducing interest rates generally in the country?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated previously the rate of the Bank of Canada, the rediscount rate, this particular lending rate is not used very often, and it seemed appropriate under the circumstances to reduce it by half of one per cent, which the Governor of the Bank of Canada decided to do after, of course, consultation with me.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The minister has not given any indication as to the purpose of this, but will he agree that the effect of the total package, the increase in the reserve requirements for the commercial banks and the additional treasury bills being sold to the banks, will have the effect of substantially tightening the supply of credit in the country?


Edgar John Benson: No, Mr. Speaker, they should be completely offsetting.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, this is not the sort of thing one can pursue too far by way of question and answer. It is more appropriate perhaps to ask the minister if he would consider reverting to motions in order to make a statement to explain this very puzzling action to the country. The minister says on the one hand that the reduction in the bank rate is expected to have virtually no effect and then he says it is going to offset some other effects. Would the minister consider making a statement on motions?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is necessary to revert to motions. It is a very simple matter. The offsetting effect was not the reduction in the interest rate but rather the increase in the secondary reserves of the banks which will offset the additional amount that would go into the money supply due to the issuing of the additional treasury bills which have become necessary because of the strength of the Canadian dollar.
May 12. 1970	COMMONS


Mr. Max Sallsman (Waterloo):: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Finance, Mr. Speaker. In view of the speculation that this might cause with regard to the future course of the Canadian dollar, would the minister not seriously consider making a statement indicating what the government's position will be on the exchange rate of the Canadian dollar?


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to me that the hon. member is now reiterating the question or suggestion made by the Leader of the Opposition a moment ago.


Max Saltsman: If I might rephrase my question, Mr. Speaker, would the minister indicate whether he has confidence that the value of the Canadian dollar will be maintained at its present rate?


Edgar John Benson: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister telling the House that it is still the government's policy to fight inflation by continuing a deliberate economic slowdown and creating more unemployment?


Edgar John Benson: No, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands.



LABOUR RELATIONS


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport concerning the strike of towboat workers in British Columbia. In view of the fact that the dispute largely concerns the lack of adequate safety regulations, can the minister give the House and the workers in the towboat industry any assurance when the new safety regulations will be put into effect?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, approximately two weeks ago, at the instigation of the unions in British Columbia I arranged for joint meetings with the ship owners and with the Bureau of Ship Inspection of my department. I have been informed by the unions and by management that these meetings were very
DEBATES	6845
Inquiries of the Ministry successful, but I understand that there is a need now for a second round of meetings. I have indicated that we would be prepared to convene these at the earliest possible moment convenient to all parties. I understand that considerable progress has been made but that these final details have to be resolved. When these recommendations come in we will implement them at once.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question. In view of the fact that part of the difficulty in resolving the problem lies in the insistence of the Department of Transport that these regulations be national in scope and in view of the fact that conditions for towboats operating in the Strait of Georgia are different from those for towboats operating in the St. Lawrence Seaway, would the minister be prepared to consider regional regulations applicable to the British Columbia coast?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, as a layman I am persuaded there is a good deal of logic in the proposal advanced by the hon. member and which was also advanced to me by the Merchant Seamen's Guild. I have not, from my personal knowledge, any response from the experts in the field as to whether this is feasible or not. But I think the premise from which I might begin is that it ought to be done if it is feasible, and these are the instructions I have given to the officials of the department.


Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Transport. I understood the minister to say that the new regulations will be implemented at once. How long does the minister think it will take to develop the kind of inspection services necessary to see that these regulations are complied with and enforced? What are his plans in that regard in order that they will not be just paper regulations but will actually be enforced on these ships?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, my intention is to appoint additional staff as quickly as competent people can be found and also to employ coastguard vessels to a larger extent than previously, in order to carry out on-the-spot inspections in addition to normal, annual inspections. I consider this necessary in order to ensure that these regulations are adhered to by the towboat operators.
6846	COMMONS DEBATES
Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]



DISTURBANCES IN GALLERIES- STUDY OF BILL C-148

Mr. Real Caouelie (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Justice, I would like to ask the Acting Prime Minister a question about yesterday's disturbance in the galleries of the House of Commons.
On November 10, 1969, I put on the order paper Bill C-148 titled "An Act to amend the Criminal Code". Since the measure tends to punish those who disturb the order of the House of Commons, I ask the minister if the government intends to introduce soon a motion for second reading of the bill and its referral to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the incident that we had here in the House yesterday was adequately dealt with in your statement and in the subsequent motion that this matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization. At that time the question that has been raised by the hon. member could be looked into.



PROPOSED U.S. TAX CREDIT FOR EXPORTS- CANADIAN ACTION

Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Has-tings):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Has the minister been in touch with the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States to find out what kind of tax incentive to aid exporters the United States government will be announcing on Friday so that the Canadian government will be in a position, when that announcement is made, to make the same kind of move to aid Canadian exporters and thereby enable them to compete on even terms with United States competitors in the world market?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, we are looking into it at the official level?


George Harris Hees: At the what, Mr. Speaker?


Edgar John Benson: At the official level, Mr. Speaker.
[Mr. Jamieson.1
May 12, 1970



CHANGES IN OIL AND GAS REGULATIONS- CONSULTATION WITH COMPANIES

Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Was there any consultation between himself and his department and the oil and gas companies about changes in the oil and gas regulations, which were apparently made unilaterally by the government?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: There was no consultation, Mr. Speaker. We simply told the companies concerned that we had the intention of amending the regulations. I am pleased to assure the hon. member that consultations will be held with spokesmen from the industry involved before the new regulations are applied. These regulations had been adopted in 1961 and were to be revised in 1965; but we decided to wait until this year. We shall consult the representatives of that industry in the next few weeks.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since the minister says that the regulations made in 1961, which were quite satisfactory to the industry, are now being unilaterally changed, would he be prepared to refer this important matter to the appropriate committee for study before the changes are implemented?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I think it was quite clear and known by the industry that these regulations would be changed five years after their implementation in 1961.


Mr. Lewis:: In what way?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: We have suspended the regulations now. We will have consultation with the industry on the matter of these regulations, and when we come forward with them we shall be glad to have the committee look into them.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the minister received suggestions from the United States government that their regulations affecting leases held under similar conditions by Canadians in Alaska under United States jurisdiction will be similarly changed?
May 12, 1970	COMMONS


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the regulations in Canada will be made by Canadians for the best interests of Canadians.


Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfoot):: A supplementary question. Can the minister assure the House and the country that the new regulations, when adopted, will also provide enough incentive to bring about the development of that part of Canada?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Yes, Mr. Speaker. We are very much interested in developing the north. At the same time we are very interested in protecting the interests of Canadians. If we have to change these regulations it will be done in the best interests of the country.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Will the minister advise the House if, when formulating these regulations, the government took into account some of the nonsensical provisions of the white paper on taxation which discourage this type of activity?



AWARDING OF CONTRACT BY PANARCTIC


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, in a sense this is a supplementary question, although it could be separate. In answer to a question a moment ago the minister said that the government was taking into consideration Canadian interests. When Panarctic awarded a drilling contract to an American drilling firm, did the government take into account the fact that the drilling firm would be able to have its equipment in the north and therefore be in a preferential position for drilling for many years to come?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, that decision was made by the management of Panarctic Oils Limited and it is not our prerogative to interfere with each and every one of their administrative decisions. However, I will look into the problem raised by my hon. friend.


David Lewis: A supplementary question. I ask the minister, when he studies the problem, to find out from Panarctic what their policies will be with regard to drilling in the north in view of the fact that the equipment which this ADEC company will be transporting to the north is not yet built, and the whole matter, therefore, is being handed over to foreign interests.
DEBATES	6847
Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I said earlier that I would look into the matter. Evidently, Panarctic Oils Limited, indeed like all other companies, tries to get a maximum return on its investments, and often resorts to public tenders in order to award contracts. However, in this particular case I am not aware of all the facts but I shall make inquiries and inform the hon. member more fully.



CONSULTATION WITH DIRECTORS OF PANARCTIC OILS LIMITED

Eldon Mattison Woolliams: have a supplementary arising out of the answers just given by the minister with reference to Panarctic. Some directors were appointed by the government and some were appointed by private enterprise. Are these directors now in Ottawa and has the minister consulted with them today?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I believe the directors of Panarctic Oils Limited are now in Ottawa and I understand I shall have an opportunity to meet them tomorrow, and discuss the matter with them.



POST OFFICE


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: My question is for the Postmaster General. Is the minister in a position today to bring the House up to date with reference to the progress which is being made in the negotiations between the officials of the Council of Postal Unions and the government?


Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Postmaster General and Minister of Communications):: I am in a
position to refer the hon. member to the President of the Treasury Board who, as the employer, is charged with the negotiations.


Robert Muir: May
I do as the Postmaster General suggests?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: I am glad to say, Mr. Speaker, that as of this morning the parties are back at the negotiating table and negotiations are now proceeding.
6848	COMMONS DEBATES	May 12, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry
HEALTH AND WELFARE


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



REDUCTION IN BRITISH COLUMBIA HOSPITAL SERVICES AND STAFFS

Mr. Barry Malher (Surrey):: In the absence of the Minister of National Health and Welfare I will direct my question to his Parliamentary Secretary. I wish to refer to the undertaking made by the minister a few days ago to look into the situation in British Columbia where there has been a sudden and substantial reduction in hospital services and staffs which are partly paid for by the federal government? Has the minister looked into this? What is the situation?


Mr. Rosaire Gendron (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I will take the question as notice and I will draw it to the minister's attention.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
Since the textile industry is stagnating, is the minister in a position to tell us whether the new government policy concerning that industry will be announced in the near future?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: In the very near future, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the hon. member in advance for the support which he will then extend to me.



AWARDING OF 1976 SUMMER OLYMPIC GAMES TO MONTREAL

Mr. Aurelien Noel (Outremont):: I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister. Can he report to the House on the status of the Canadian application for the Olympic Games?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the House will be delighted to hear that a message has been received from Amsterdam to this effect: "The International Olympic Committee decided Tuesday that Montreal would stage the Olympic summer games in 1976."


Gerald William Baldwin: What about the winter
Olympics?


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question.
I take this opportunity to say that I feel elated at this piece of news. I would like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) if he should like to meet soon the officials of the City of Montreal in order to get ready for these Olympic Games.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for South Shore.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, on a point of
order-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member for Joliette on a point of order.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I am under the impression that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) has not understood my question very well.
I hope he will be interested in meeting the officials of the City of Montreal to find out to what extent the federal government can contribute to the success of the 1976 Summer Olympics.


Mitchell William Sharp: Well, I can assure the hon. member that the Mayor of Montreal is very grateful for the support which Canada gave to his application for these games.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Can the
Acting Prime Minister tell us the amount the federal government is prepared to guarantee? What was the size of the offer Mayor Dra-peau made and which we shall have to stand behind?


Mr. Speaker:: I am not sure this is a question which can be asked at this time. It can be placed on the Order Paper or, if the hon. member thinks it is urgent, it can be discussed at the time of adjournment.



VANCOUVER APPLICATION FOR 1976 WINTER OLYMPIC GAMES

Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Does the government intend to take any official position in connection with the application
May 12. 1970

from Garibaldi Park for the winter Olympics, a question which has to be decided before the end of the week?


Mitchell William Sharp: I can assure the hon. member that the Canadian government is giving the same support to all Canadian applications; there is no discrimination whatever.



HOUSING


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Yesterday the Acting Prime Minister was asked whether the government proposed to do anything about the decrease in housing starts to a rate of 168,000 a year. The Acting Prime Minister said that if the government reached the conclusion that the time had come to reverse gears it would do so, but that it would be very dangerous to do so prematurely. Is it the position of the government that it would be dangerous to build or to encourage the building this year of 200,000 to 250,000 homes in Canada?


Mitchell William Sharp: The Canadian government is putting very large additional amounts at the disposal of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in order to maintain a satisfactory rate of housing construction. The number of housing starts is dependent, of course, on many factors in addition to the availability of money.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I am asking the hon. gentleman whether he believes it would be dangerous for the government to take measures to encourage the construction of some 250,000 homes as required. Is it the position of the government that these policies would be dangerous to the country?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker, I think the country could build 250,000 houses without any serious strain.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Could I ask the Acting Prime Minister whether he himself proposes to announce the policies which will bring this about, or whether they will be announced by the Minister of Finance?


Mitchell William Sharp: Perhaps I might comment briefly on this exchange. I should like to reiterate the point I made yesterday, namely, that if one is pursuing an anti-inflationary policy in the hope that it will be successful, it cannot 22375-16

Inquiries of the Ministry be carried out by fits and starts. There has to be a consistent policy, and that is what we intend to follow.


Gerald William Baldwin: You have the fits, but no starts.



REDUCTION OF INTEREST RATES BY LENDERS TO STIMULATE CONSTRUCTION

Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: My question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Bearing in mind the decrease in the interest rate charged by the Bank of Canada, would the hon. gentleman convey to the mortgage lenders, namely, the banks, the insurance companies and the trust companies, a request that they reduce their interest rates in turn to stimulate housing construction in Canada?


Edgar John Benson: The decrease in the Bank of Canada's interest rate reflects decreases which have been taking place in short-term lending rates over the past month or so, during which the shortterm treasury bill rate has dropped by more than a percentage point.



FISHERIES


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries arising from his announcement applying an immediate freeze on the catching capacity of Atlantic Canada's herring fishing fleet. What effort has the minister or the Secretary of State for External Affairs made to get other countries, especially Russia and Poland, whose fleets carry out extensive herring fishing operations off our coast, to agree to limit their catches?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: Various submissions have been made through the International Commission for the North Atlantic Fisheries, ICNAF, concerning the over fishing of species like herring off Canada's East Coast.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: In view of the fact that last year's catch of herring was valued at $12 million, what is the estimated poundage which can be taken annually without destroying this resource?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is asking for detailed statistical information; his question is not in order.
6850	COMMONS DEBATES	May 12, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Louis-Roland Comeau (South Western today to consider the maximum loading and Nova):: The minister has stated that further unloading of cars, especially for the Thunder fisheries research is required in order to pre- Bay region. There is nothing exceptional vent the extinction of some species. Would he about the amount of working space, but we be prepared to intensify research activity in are concerned about the throughput arriving connection with the herring fishery?	and staying at the proper level.


John (Jack) Davis: The answer is, yes, Mr. Speaker. We are transferring personnel for this purpose.


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: May I ask what prompted this decision to place a freeze on the herring catch of our Atlantic fleet? Is it the policy of the government now to take steps to reduce the number of reduction plants in production on the east coast?


John (Jack) Davis: The concern arose primarily because of the fantastic increase in catch. The catch of herring is now in the order of half a million tons a year in the waters immediately off Canada. This is by Canadians only. The resource cannot stand a continued upswing in fishing effort on this scale.


James Aloysius McGrath: The minister did not answer that part of my question in which I asked whether it was the government's intention to follow up this freeze by reducing the number of reduction plants in production.


John (Jack) Davis: I doubt whether any more reduction plants will be built in the circumstances of a freeze on herring fishing vessels.



WHEAT-INCREASE IN ALLOTMENT OF BOXCARS TO KEEP ELEVATORS FILLED

Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: have a question for the Minister without Portfolio in charge of the Wheat Board. Since there is available working space amounting to nearly 10 million bushels in the pool terminals at the Lakehead and a further two million bushels in the terminals at Vancouver, and although the allotment of cars to Saskatchewan has been increased from 2,100 to 2,600 a week, may I ask what action has been taken to increase the allotment beyond 2,600 so as to make use of this space and build up a backlog of cars so that the employees can work full shifts?


Hon. Oito E. Lang (Minister without Portfolio):: The whole question of the allocation of cars in order that they will arrive at the terminals in the most efficient way is under constant review. There is a further meeting


Mr. Rod Thomson (Battleford-Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister without Portfolio. When the committee reviews the boxcar and terminal situation, would it also check into the question of shipping on the Great Lakes to make sure that enough ships are available? There have been reports that this is not the case.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, that is an item that is on the committee's agenda.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. Henry Lalulippe (Compion):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence.
Would he tell the House whether Canada intends to join NATO's Mediterranean fleet, a symbol of solidarity, in order to strengthen the Atlantic Alliance, by taking part in the exercises carried out by that integrated unit?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Minisier of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, in general, Canadian ships take part in exercises on the Atlantic. Occasionally, they visit the Mediterranean, but we do not intend to have them participate in the exercises that may take place there.



PLACING OF DURUM WHEAT IN SAME CATEGORY AS OTHER GRAINS UNDER ACREAGE REDUCTION PROGRAM

Mr. A. B. Douglas (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. In view of the minister's answer to my question last week about the final payment on 1968-69 Durum wheat to the effect that the payment would be made before long, and in view of the continued demand for Durum wheat, will the minister now revise the Lift plan and place Durum wheat in the same category as oats, barley, rye and oilseeds?
May 12. 1970	COMMONS


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the Durum figures are in fact now complete and are expected to be announced today. Payments are to be mailed out beginning immediately, and will range between 16 and 34 cents across grades. Notwithstanding this news, I must say most emphatically that Durum is wheat under the Lift program and that there is no need for any Durum production this year because we have on hand stocks sufficient for several years' supply.



WHEAT-ESTIMATE OF SEEDED ACREAGE

William Gordon Ritchie: A supplementary question to the minister, Mr. Speaker. In view of the report by the Saskatchewan Department of Agriculture that surveys indicate that nine million acres of wheat will be seeded in that province as of April 15, can the minister say what his department's total estimate of seeded wheat acreage for the prairies will be?


Otto Emil Lang: The estimate at this stage cannot be very accurate, but it is going in a downward direction each day.



REPORTED CRITICISM OF SALES METHODS BY CANADA GRAINS COUNCIL

Mr. Craig Stewart (Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the minister. Has the Canadian Grains Council submitted a report to the minister criticizing the government's outdated methods of selling grain?



DELAY IN PASSAGE OF CANADA GRAIN BILL IN ORDER TO STUDY IMPLICATIONS

John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister without Portfolio in charge of the Wheat Board. Would he tell the House whether or not he has received a statement from the Canadian Grains Council urging the minister and the House to hold back the passage of Bill C-196 until all of the agricultural industry, including the Grains Council, has had time to study the implications?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I wonder whether this question might not be raised when that order is before the House. It seems to me that in a way it is anticipating the consideration of an order that is now before the House.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, although I think your suggestion is a 22375-16J
DEBATES	6851
Inquiries of the Ministry very good one, in view of the urgency of a number of measures that should be taken on behalf of the agricultural industry it would better facilitate debate on this particular piece of legislation if we knew for certain whether or not the Grains Council, the members of which are hired and appointed by the government, has actually urged the minister to hold back the legislation.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps that might be ascertained. I do not want to be difficult in this regard. Although I see nothing basically wrong with the question, my thought was that difficulty is always caused by asking questions relating to bills that are actually before the House. It seems to me that the normal time to seek that kind of information is when the bill is actually before the House. However, the minister might be allowed to reply to the hon. member's question.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, both in regard to that question and in regard to the previous question, may I say I have received a good deal of correspondence from the Grains Council about many matters, of which I think this is one. However, I am sure that the Minister of Agriculture, whose bill was referred to in the last question, would be glad to respond to it in detail.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: I have a question, Mr. Speaker, which I would have directed to the Minister of Agriculture but in his absence I shall direct to his Parliamentary Secretary. In view of the announcement by the United States government that it has banned all remaining uses of 2-4-5T around homes and in food crops, thus limiting its use to pastures and roadsides, can the Parliamentary Secretary tell the House when he or the minister will table the report on chemical control which was referred to by him on May 7 in the House of Commons?
[Translation\


Mr. Florian Cote (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Inquiries of the Ministry table it as soon as he gets it. I do not know on what date exactly, but this will be in the near future.



POLLUTION


Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. On May 7, as reported at page 6682 of Hansard, I asked the minister whether, in view of the very alarming situation created by mercury pollution of our lakes and rivers, there was industrial equipment in use at the present time. In view of the minister's answer to the question and the possibility of error in interpretation, I should like to ask him whether either Canada or the United States has a workable system of monitoring mercury spillage, and if a standard has been set for the safe amount of mercury in foodstuffs?


John (Jack) Davis: To my knowledge, Mr. Speaker, no industrial equipment exists that makes it possible to monitor the very minute amounts of mercury in water. However, it is possible to detect mercury that is concentrated in animals, and particularly in fish. The answer, then, is that there is no industrial equipment for monitoring water effluent at plants, but that in our Fisheries Research Board we are monitoring it in the fish themselves.



LEVYING OF TAX AGAINST CERTAIN COMPANIES

Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingale):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry, who is in charge of pollution matters in the House of Commons, indicate whether he is planning to recommend to the House the levying of a pollution tax, as he indicated yesterday in a speech he made on the east coast, against companies that are heavy users of highly toxic substances?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, in a speech I made yesterday I did mention the idea of a pollution abatement tax, something that has been proposed by a number of people. I have also discussed this briefly with the Minister of Finance.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Can the hon. gentleman inform the House when a director for the War Veterans Allowance Board will be appointed to replace Colonel Cromb who retired some four months ago?


Hon. Jean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, no decision has yet been taken in regard to this appointment.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: A supplementary question. Could the hon. gentleman assure the House that it is his intention to appoint a successor?


Jean-Eudes Dubé: Eventually, Mr. Speaker, of course.



INDUSTRY


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Is the minister in a position to tell the House how soon he will be able to announce his new textile policy, which is a matter of great concern to the industry as far as planning is concerned?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. That question was asked earlier this afternoon.



AIR TRANSPORT


Mr. Bruce Howard (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. When can we expect publication of a list of criteria for crash position indicators?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I shall have to take that question as notice. I know that the officials are working on it but I have no idea as to the actual date.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General, who is here today when he should not be but was not here yesterday when he
May 12, 1970
should have been. Are the Royal Canadian Mounted Police stepping up their investigation of those promoting subversive activities in Canada in light of the violence and damage associated with the weekend demonstration in Toronto?


Hon. G. J. Mcllraiih (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I would prefer to take that question as notice.



TRANSPORT


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Have the labour difficulties associated with railway safety standards and testing and various regulations at Roberts Bank been drawn to his attention?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, a number of matters concerning Roberts Bank have been brought to my attention, but I do not know exactly to what matter the hon. member is referring.


Mark Willson Rose: On a point of clarification, Mr. Speaker, there is a work stoppage there and the root of it seems to be a dispute concerning the testing of brakes at Roberts Bank.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



PENITENTIARIES


Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Solicitor General.
Following numerous suicides in federal penitentiaries, the minister said that an inquiry was being conducted on the causes of those suicides. Is he now in a position to apprise us of the findings of that inquiry?


George James McIlraith: Not in so many words, Mr. Speaker. Investigations have been going on with regard to the handling of the whole subject at the St. Vincent de Paul institution. Certain changes have been made at that institution to meet the local situation there. We have had a committee working with the psychiatrists and psychologists on the handling of the individuals concerned. We also have a committee continuing its work on the subject at the institutions across the country.
Inquiries of the Ministry TRANSPORT



TOBERMORY-SOUTH BAY-IMPROVEMENT OF FERRY SERVICE

Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct this question to the Minister of Transport. Will the minister give favourable consideration to improving the ferry service facilities between Tobermory and South Bay which at present represent a serious bottleneck to the ever-increasing traffic on this popular route?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I have met with some of the residents of the area and have discussed the matter. It is one which also involves the government of the province of Ontario and discussions with that government are now proceeding.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. As the Dominion Bureau of Statistics has announced that during the month of April the consumer price index, the cost of living, went up by six-tenths of one per cent, which is at an annual rate of increase of 7.2 per cent, showing a very rapid acceleration in the rise in the consumer price index-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I must invite the hon. member to ask his question.


George Harris Hees: Would the minister take the first opportunity on motions to outline to the House and the country what new plans and policies the government now intends to introduce to correct this very seriously worsening situation?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, the increase in February and March of this year was the lowest increase in four years and compared with a 1.1 per cent increase in the same monthly period last year and is very encouraging.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I understand that the hon. member has a supplementary but since we are running short of time perhaps the hon. member might ask it tomorrow. The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands.



May 12, 1970
Business of the House EXTERNAL AFFAIRS



TRANSFER OF NERVE GAS FROM OKINAWA TO UNITED STATES

Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, since the Secretary of State for External Affairs is not on the roster for today perhaps I could direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister. With regard to the shipment of nerve gas from Okinawa to the United States through the Strait of Juan de Fuca, I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister whether the United States government has yet informed the Canadian government concerning the date when this shipment will take place and also whether or not he is prepared to make public the safety precautions which were communicated to him by the United States government?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the United States apparently has made a decision to ship the nerve gas but has not yet decided when because of the litigation that is now before the courts instituted by the governors of the states of Washington and Oregon.
The safety precautions are outlined in a press release issued by the United States government. I could get that for the hon. member but I do not feel any responsibility for the distribution of press releases of the United States government. The safety precautions, however, are quite extensive and are being discussed with the government of British Columbia in the event the United States decides to go ahead.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day. We have run out of time. The hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings was not allowed a supplementary so I cannot allow the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands to put a supplementary question. Orders of the day.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with reference to the work of the House. I understand that this afternoon two important bills will be discussed which were before the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. At the same time this committee is scheduled to sit to study another important bill with reference to federal courts. With the greatest respect,

under the new system it is important that those members who have studied a bill in committee and heard the evidence should have an opportunity to speak on it in the House. The committee will be sitting when these two serious matters are before the House, and it seems to me this makes it very difficult for members on both sides of the House. I can speak for the members of the committee from all parties when I say they are interested particularly in the second matter which is to come before the House in respect of criminal records. I would hope that the committee would take heed of this situation and adjourn its sitting this afternoon.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I would agree with the hon. member. One purpose in announcing the business of the House a week ahead is so that members of the House generally can make arrangements of this kind. I had hoped that the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs might have noted the fact that these bills were being called for today and would have arranged their business accordingly. If I may address myself to the members of that committee perhaps they might decide not to sit this afternoon as planned so that we can proceed with the debate on the two items which have been called for today.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order raised by my colleague, I think the point of the House Leader is very well taken but I would point out that the witness for today comes from Dalhousie University in Halifax-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Jardine McCleave: This involves a witness from out of town. Hon. members may groan, but I am not being chauvinistic when I say I believe it would be better if the committee did not ask this professor to wait around. Since he did come here in all good faith for this afternoon's meeting, perhaps he could be heard this evening.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, as an alternative perhaps the committee would consider meeting during private members hour today at five o'clock for the purpose of hearing his testimony and then it might arrange to continue this evening, if necessary.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Again this involves the work of the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. I believe the bill that will be before the House is one that has been considered in that committee.
May 12, 1970	COMMONS
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-186, to establish a Commission for the Reform of the laws of Canada, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
George James McIlraith: that Bill C-186, to establish a commission for the reform of the laws of Canada, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
George James McIlraith: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, on the third reading of this bill to set up a law reform commission, I might say to the House that, with the exception of a few amendments, the members of the committee were in accord that this is a good commission to set up. However, I wish to deal with one or two points. I hope that this commission would not be established and used by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) or the government for the purpose of procrastinating in respect of reforms that are obvious. I should like to draw an analogy.
What happened yesterday in the gallery with reference to the law of abortion arose because an incorrect impression was left when the omnibus bill came up in the House. If you were to go back to the record of my speeches you would find that I had pointed out then that the abortion law of Canada was not being changed. Under the original code a therapeutic abortion was permitted under certain circumstances where there was a danger to the life of a mother, and this was left to the discretion of the professional medical practitioner. The courts interpreted that as meaning not only when the life of the mother was endangered but also when her health was in danger. So, in that regard, the law has not been changed at all. Those people who pressed for abortion reform were led to believe by various people, and even by the ministers who took part in the debate, that
DEBATES	6855
Law Reform Commission Bill there would be a great reform in the abortion law. Females across this country who wished to exercise what they thought was their new legal right found to their surprise that the law had not been reformed. In fact, in my opinion, the amended law curtails the right to therapeutic abortion. I believe that is the reason for the degree of excitement and emotional disturbance which took place yesterday in the galleries of the House of Commons.
The analogy I want to draw is this. We passed a bill called the omnibus Criminal Code reform bill, about which much was written by the press of the country and much was said through the various communications media. The bill was described as a great reform measure and a step forward in many directions. I said then, and I repeat now, that so far as most matters covered by that bill were concerned there was no reform whatsoever. People were fooled and deceived. I imagine that the people who wrote articles about the bill and the newspapers which printed them, really believed there was going to be reform.
Unless one were a lawyer and analysed the amendments as they were written in the Criminal Code reform bill, one would not have appreciated, at the time of the debate, the fact that there was actually no reform so far as abortion was concerned. What I am saying is I do hope that when this new commission is set up it will not be used to procrastinate so far as reform is concerned or that an alternative will not be used to bluff the public that they are getting the reform when in fact this is not the case at all.
To what sections of the Criminal Code can reforms be proposed? Under the Criminal Code of Canada any person seven years or older, provided he understands the nature and quality of the act, can be charged and convicted, and any child over the age of 14, without the previously stated qualification, can be charged. There was a private member's bill before the House under my name which dealt with that subject but which was deliberately talked out. The Solicitor General (Mr. Mcllraith) has just taken his place, so let me point this out to him. The rumour I heard-and he can deny it-is that he told his backbenchers not to let the reform go through, not because it was a bad reform but because it came from the wrong side of the House.


George James McIlraith: The rumour is false.
May 12, 1970

Law Reform Commission Bill


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I do hope that this commission will not use this method to procrastinate in bringing about the necessary reform. What are some of the other reforms? I just returned from a conference on law reform which several professors from various law schools across the country attended. The conference was held at Cedar Glen on Thursday and Friday of last week. Some top men in the field were present, such as Hogarth of Osgood Hall. I am sure that the former dean of Saskatchewan university wiU give a sympathetic hearing to some of the suggestions I will make. He pointed out that although there is not one law for the rich and one for the poor, that is the case in its application.
Let us consider bail, for example. Members from all sides of the House have been asking for some reform in the law as it applies to bail. Only two weeks ago, in Banff, Alberta, three young men were picked up on a drug charge. Two of them, who were from affluent families, were granted bail on Sunday morning. The third, who was from a poor family, remained in jail. So, there is discrimination. The three young men were charged with the same offence. What do our young men think of a society in which two people who come from affluent families can be left free while their trial is pending, a trial which may not take place until next fall after the case goes through a preliminary hearing, while the third remains in jail? Fortunately, the two young men went out amongst high school and university students and personally raised enough money to bail out the young man who did not have a rich family behind him. In many cases this does not happen. The point I am making is that I hope this law commission will not just be a piece of window dressing. I hope that when we ask the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner), the Solicitor General or anyone else connected with the administration of law a question in the House with regard to reform of the law, they will not say that it is before the law reform commission. I hope this Commission will not be just another excuse for an all-powerful government, with an all-powerful bureaucracy behind it, to hide and procrastinate on the reforms that are needed.
The next matter with which I wish to deal concerns the question of drugs. I heard a newscast the other day which I found very interesting. Members from all sides of the House have been asking for the LeDain Commission report on the drug problem which is one of the most serious social questions

Canada is facing today in relation to the young people in high schools, universities and elsewhere. I listened to the newscast in which it was suggested that there has been some interference by members of this government, by cabinet ministers, with the work of the LeDain Commission. They want to delay its recommendations because this is such a serious social problem they are frightened of the recommendations of the commission. They are afraid to face up to their responsibilities and to the recommendations made by the commission, so they want either changes, delay or procrastination.
These are my fears when we have before the House recommendations for the establishment of a law reform commission. These are beautiful words, but I expect little action and much procrastination. It seems to me that when a commission is set up to study such a serious matter the government should not interfere until the independent commission has held its hearings, analysed its evidence, and made its recommendations. The government is not obliged at any time to implement any recommendations, whether these are the recommendations of the Carter Commission, recommendations in a white paper or recommendations of the LeDain Commission. Once these recommendations come before the House in the shape of a white paper or a bill, we know that the government intends to act on those recommendations.
I should now like to deal with the appeal Procedure. I am still convinced that in the application of that Procedure the rich and the poor are treated differently because affluent people can afford the cost of an appeal, whether it is an appeal from summary conviction, which is a trial de novo in county or district court, or an appeal to the courts of appeal of various provinces. One of the great problems is in getting the evidence. As you can appreciate, Mr. Speaker, being a member of the bar yourself, in order for an appeal case to be successful in any appellate court, it is necessary for the evidence of the lower courts to be typed and printed. There again the cost per page is $1 and in some cases more than that, so that very few people can afford to appeal. Therefore, there are sometimes miscarriages of justice because of that cost.
On the basis of what I have said, surely we do not need a law reform commission to decide on certain amendments to the code. I agree with the minister that it would be a good thing, instead of patching up the Crimi-
May 12, 1970	COMMONS
nal Code, to have it analysed completely by a law commission which would then make recommendations. However, the Criminal Code is a large and complicated statute, so that job is not going to be done in six months or in a year. Let us have our own House committee examine the Criminal Code and make recommendations with respect to reform whereby bail will be made available to everyone wanting it. Surely, we have reached a stage in judicial history when bail, the right to have freedom, should not be based on dollars and cents, the keystone of a materialistic world.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
I think that many times bail is set not to guarantee that persons will appear in court at the proper time but so that they may be incarcerated for a period of time during which the authorities make efforts to get more evidence against them, or so that they may suffer punishment even before their case is heard.
I also believe we have reached a time in judicial history when certain offences under the Criminal Code should not require bail provisions. I am speaking of instances where people are charged with impaired driving offences. In fact, I have been told by a judge from the city of Hamilton that in that city no bail is set for such offences. A person arrested on an impaired driving charge usually has a family living in the city where he is charged, and for that reason alone he will appear for trial. Let us do away with bail entirely for this kind of offence.
We all know very well that bail is not a guarantee that a person will appear for trial. After all, Banks' bail was set at $25,000, but he never put up the money. It was probably some syndicated criminal group that put up the money. Banks disappeared into the United States, and even though the United States now says the case can be re-opened and we can get him back here, apparently the government does not want him back in Canada. In this modern age bail does not guarantee that a person will appear at trial. If he has enough money he can afford to let the bail money go to the Crown. If he does not have money for bail he must spend the time in jail.
These reforms will have to come soon or we will have more of what took place yesterday in this House, and of what is taking place throughout the nation, all of which is only keeping pace with the demand for social and
DEBATES	6857
Law Reform Commission Bill other reforms. If we implement these reforms we will then get the confidence of the young people who are now growing up in a very unhappy world, or in what to them seems to be an unhappy society. Then, they would appreciate that there is not a generation gap, that we who are here now can assist them to get the kind of reforms they are demanding.
Let us have no more of that bluffing which says that we are reforming the Criminal Code, particularly with respect to matters which affect the consciences of men and women like abortion and homosexuality, when in fact we are not changing the law one iota. That is what caused the trouble yesterday. It is that type of thing which often causes the trouble and gives rise to protests by the public. I have said what I wished to say on third reading. I only hope that this law reform commission will not be used as an excuse to procrastinate on other reforms which I and other hon. members have urged on other occasions.


John Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, we in the New Democratic Party are very happy that Bill C-186 has reached third reading stage. We supported it on second reading and also in committee.
In Canada we are not law pacers; we are law followers. When we talk about the law reform commission we should remember that the State of New York set up its law reform commission in 1934. New Zealand established its law reform commission in 1937; California established its in 1953; Ontario established its commission in 1964, and England established its law reform commission in 1965. That is a clear indication that we are following the pattern set by other countries rather than setting the pace.
The Ontario Law Reform Commission had great success in studying certain aspects of the law. It has done a great job with regard to the Mechanics Lien Act, personal property security and expropriation, and it would be fair to say that with regard to expropriation it set the pattern for the federal act.
We look with encouragement at the law reform commission that is being established. At committee stage the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) said that certain matters would be referred to it. He said that probably the first matters would be the Criminal Code and the Evidence Act. These two matters do go together but, Mr. Speaker, I would hope that even though the commission may be studying them in depth it will not overlook the report
May 12, 1970

Law Reform Commission Bill of the Canadian Committee on Corrections, commonly called the Ouimet Commission Report. If we were to use the balance of this session to implement the recommendations contained in the Ouimet Commission Report we would be faced with a heavy workload in our endeavours to up-date the criminal law and reform institutions in Canada.
In committee, the minister also said that he hopes before this session ends to introduce a bill dealing with bail procedures, and procedures on arrest. He also indicated that he might introduce amendments with regard to vagrancy. I hope that he will implement one of the recommendations of the Ouimet Commission concerning corporal punishment. These are all matters that should be dealt with by the end of this session, and by the beginning of next session the minister and the Solicitor General (Mr. Mcllraith) could combine to introduce legislation implementing the balance of the Ouimet Commission recommendations. It is one thing to refer the Criminal Code and the Evidence Act to a committee, and ask it to study the different areas of the Criminal Code in depth, but it is another matter to have the committee study the philosophy relating to criminal law. I hope that the Law Reform Commission will study the philosophy relating to criminal law.
The time has come when we must closely examine the adversary system as it relates to criminal law. We have made an improvement in the treatment of juvenile delinquents. Here, the basis of approach is one of rehabilitation or reformation, and it has worked quite successfully. I hope we can carry over this approach into criminal law, and lessen the emphasis on the adversary system.
I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Cantin) would enjoy hearing parts of a speech which the Minister of Justice delivered in Windsor, when the minister attacked the adversary system, particularly certain myths that prevail with regard to it. With respect to three of those myths he said:
We must disabuse ourselves of the myth that the criminal law process can be understood within the contours of the adversary system.
We must disabuse ourselves of the myth that there is indeed an adversary system of criminal justice at all.
We must disabuse ourselves of the myth that the criminal law sanction falls with equal impact on all segments of society.
He set forth the differences between vagrancy and public drunkenness to demonstrate the third myth.

I recall that when I introduced a bill designed to abolish corporal punishment, the Parliamentary Secretary spoke in support of it. I am sure that with this forward-looking parliamentary secretary, and with our forward-looking Minister of Justice, not only will the recommendations in the Ouimet Commission Report be implemented but they will also see to it that the law reform commission studies the Criminal Code and the Evidence Act as well as the philosophy behind them. When the commission reports, they will see that its recommendations are implemented with speed.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)


Mr. Jean-Charles Cantin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, when he reads today's Hansard the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner), who is away on other official business, will surely appreciate the hon. members' contribution to this debate.
It takes some time to incorporate into legislation any philosophy and commonly held ideas. This act tends, among other things, to set up the machinery which will make it possible to incorporate more quickly into law what we preach, although not overnight. This bill provides for the creation of a federal commission for the reform of laws. It is the present Minister of Justice who was the first to talk about it in October 1968, while speaking to members of the Law Society of Upper Canada convened in a special meeting at Osgoode Hall. In fact he said:
I hope that we shall soon be able to create a national commission for the reform of laws in order to explore continuously rather than occasionally the possibilities ... of amending laws.
Stating that the advance of technology and urban development was essentially reflected in the transformation of economic, social and family obligations, Mr. Turner pointed out that it would be high time to undertake, in the legal field, an orderly review and updating of the statutes. The more and more frequent intervention of the government into daily life is evidenced in the increasing number of laws passed from one year to another. Besides, the phenomenon had been already foreseen twenty years ago by the late Professor R. McGregor Dawson. This is what he said, and I quote:
Each year, the government asserts even more its authority, expands more and more the field of its activity.
May 12, 1970

To that, the present Minister of Justice answered:
It often happens that owing to special and continuous pressure to which the administrative process is submitted, many statutes or other legal regulations which control the relationship between the subjects themselves or between the subjects and the government escape this orderly review without which they will not remain consistent with either equity or changing customs.
To meet the complexity of the relationships that characterize modern societies, permanent boards of law reform have been established in certain jurisdictions. That is the context in which this legislation must be considered.
The objects of the Commission are to study and keep under review on a continuing and systematic basis the statutes and other laws of Canada with a view to making recommendations for their improvement. I am thinking here of the views expressed by the previous speaker about the updating and the review of such laws.
Without restricting the general scope of the aforementioned objects, the Commission's prime duty will be to remove anachronisms and anomalies in the laws; to reflect in and by the laws the distinctive concepts and institutions of common law, civil law, and to reconcile, in the expression and application of the law, the differences and discrepancies arising out of the differences in those concepts and institutions.
It will also have to ensure the repeal of obsolete legislation and the development of new legal concepts in keeping with the changing needs of modern Canadian society and of individual members of that society.
One hopes that the Commission will make it possible to achieve the following goals:
Firstly, to give the government an objective machinery to review federal laws;
Secondly, to create an institution to which the public may direct the serious grievances it sometimes has with respect to some federal laws;
Thirdly, to give the cabinet the means to assess proposals which are submitted to it in order to amend existing laws or to pass new ones.
Fourthly, to set up a body that will carry out a critical study of the federal laws, in the light of both common Law and civil law.
This bill provides for the establishment of a Commission of six members. The chairman, vice-chairman and two other full-time members will be appointed for a term not exceeding seven years and the two part-time mem-
Law Reform Commission Bill bers for a term not exceeding three years. It should be noted that the legislation will not require that the members of this Commission be lawyers or judges. Its provisions are broad enough to allow for the appointment of members from other professions.
The Commission, with its modest staff, will be empowered not only to carry out an exhaustive survey of the present federal laws but also to engage on a temporary basis for specific projects the services of persons having specialized knowledge in some legal field. Although the Commission will deal only with matters that come under the jurisdiction of Parliament, it will nevertheless be possible for it to co-operate with provincial, and even foreign, boards with which it could pool its knowledge or its resources, for the benefit of law reform.
The Commission will be free to conduct its own research programs. However, so as to ascertain that it will look only into matters of public interest, it will have to submit reports to Parliament and to the public through the Minister of Justice.
Finally, I may say that this legislation was unanimously approved by the members of the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs who made an in-depth study of this bill.
No doubt that this legislation is evidence that the government is anxious to undertake a reform, that will be both serious and continuous, of the federal laws.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, when the next bill is called in a few minutes' time, I shall have something more to say about the work of the Justice and Legal Affairs Committee. I think it should be noted now, however, in dealing with this particular Bill C-186, that four amendments were presented by the representatives of the various parties in the committee, all of them being reasoned and reasonable amendments which were accepted by the committee.
When political scientists of the future refer to this particular era to find out how well we have done with a rather new approach to Parliament, they will put on the plus side of the ledger our contribution to law reform and, in particular, the operations of the Justice and Legal Affairs Committee whose chairman is our able colleague the hon. member for Welland (Mr. Tolmie).


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
May 12, 1970

Law Reform Commission Bill


Robert Jardine McCleave: I do not hesitate to pass a bouquet to the chairman, and to my associates on the committee, for hard and effective work.
The one thing that I can see that might tarnish some of the gleam of the law reform commission is that it may be given a rather gourmet dinner at the start, that is the suggested changes to the Criminal Code, when perhaps it would be better to give this learned body a series of small snacks. The hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert) mentioned, for example, the abolition of corporal punishment. I, too, have noted that there are a couple of small but important reforms of the Divorce Act, which took effect almost a year and a half ago on July 1, which cry out for attention.
In this Parliament, Mr. Speaker, we not only have to think of the effect of this very important step that we are taking but also of whether the public appreciates what we, as a Parliament, are doing. The classical definition of a Member of Parliament would be a person who was empowered to make wise laws for his country. Yet, too many of us get bogged down in the other aspects of our duties so that the emphasis in this place is not always on the reformation or presentation of new and wise law.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
I hope, putting it rather vulgarly, that we shall not see the public relations type of changes in the law recommended by the law reform commission. I hope they do not simply make their recommendations to the Minister of Justice and then disappear from the public view. I hope they will diversify their energies and look not only at the criminal code but at other statutes needing changes. I hope they will look at acts affecting small numbers of people who, if they obtain no relief, may well feel that Parliament is indifferent to their fate.
May I cite an example and refer to something with which I have been involved during my number of years here. I refer to the Divorce Act. Residence restrictions qualifying a person to appear in a divorce court have wrought hardships, without doubt, on several classes of people. I am thinking of Canadians serving this country abroad, either in the government service or the armed forces, as well as Canadians who do not stay in any one place for any length of time but float from one part of the country to another. If one were to examine the legal decisions that have 
dealt with the jurisdiction of the courts in this field, I think one would recognize that there is a need for action by Parliament. I cite that example and allude to the example offered by my hon. friend, the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert), to show that there are certain matters that any sensible program of law reform must correct rather quickly.
I raised the point I am trying to make now when the minister was before the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs on April 21. At page 19 of the Minutes of Proceeding and Evidence No. 22 I asked:
So the government might be a little more generous, when we attempt law reform, in referring a subject matter here, letting us take a whack at it and then, if we so desire, sending it over, with perhaps a little bit of weight behind our request, to the Commission. Is this possible?
The minister replied:
I suppose it is possible. Mr. McCleave, but 1 would not like to see the Law Reform Commission caught up in everyday policy considerations and having its work unduly interrupted. It will have submitted its program to the minister and the minister will submit it by tabling to Parliament.
That probably expresses, as neatly as possible, the points of difference between the minister and myself and the point I have been trying to make this afternoon. Parliament and the Law Reform Commission must take good care to dust in the corners and sweep out the little bits of injustice we find. We must do this as effectively as we can so that groups of people, no matter how small, will feel that Parliament is paying attention to them.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-5, to provide for the relief of persons who have been convicted of offences and have subsequently rehabilitated themselves, as reported, (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
George James McIlraith: that Bill C-5, to provide for the relief of persons who have been convicted of offences and have subsequently rehabilitated themselves, as reported, (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
May 12, 1970
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read the third time?


Some hon. Members:: By leave, now.


George James McIlraith: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


Mr. Douglas Hogarth (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I think it is probably a good idea, before we conclude debate on this bill, that we review exactly what has been done and, in particular, the status of the law with respect to pardons in Canada today.
The subject of pardons has, for centuries, been part of the English law and has subsequently been carried from the English to the Canadian law. A pardon has always been granted under the exercise of the royal prerogative of mercy. For years, regardless of the power of Parliament, the monarchy has reserved unto itself the power of forgiving the subject and waiving the consequences of any particular offence, as well as the power to declare that that offence has in fact never taken place. In ancient times and during the development of the monarchy, this right was exercised solely by the monarch on four bases. It was exercised under the great seal of the realm, and in that form it now is rarely exercised. It was exercised when it was found that the subject of the prosecution was innocent; when it was found that, as a result of fresh evidence, there was serious doubt as to whether the offender had committed the act in question. In earlier times, when prisons were nothing more than dungeons, it was exercised when the imprisonment of the offender would mean the loss of his life and when the offender had gone to the assistance of the penal authorities in order to repel attacks against them.
The bill that we have before us represents a great advance over the ancient prerogative of the monarchy. From time to time statute law has removed these ancient powers of the monarch and delegated them, in Canada, in a very small measure to the courts, but in the main to the Governor General in Council. Now, the provisions governing the law of pardon are contained in sections 655 and 658 of our Criminal Code.
Apart from the provisions we have before us, there exist today four types of pardon in Canada. First, there is the reservation of Her Majesty s' right to grant the royal prerogative of mercy on any occasion, which sometimes manifests itself as an amnesty granted during a royal visit or on other state occasions.
Criminal Records
Second, there is a free pardon which is granted by the Governor in Council to those who have been subsequently shown to be innocent of the offence or offences for which they were convicted, and that completely nullifies the conviction and all its consequences. Third, there is the type of pardon known as "the commutation of the death sentence", which provides that the Governor in Council may commute the death sentence to imprisonment for a term of years or to life imprisonment. Fourth, there is a conditional pardon which does not remove the stigma of the conviction but which relieves the offender of the consequences thereof.
Under the present policy of our government, most pardons granted are conditional. In practice, the Solicitor General grants pardons on the recommendation of the National Parole Board, and nothing that we have before us in the bill we are considering today will change or qualify rights which are enshrined in the Criminal Code. These forms of pardon will continue to exist regardless of the provisions of the Criminal Records Act with which we are concerned.
[DOT] (3:40 pm.)
The impetus that is behind the present change arises from the fact that even though a man may pay his debt to society, the cross of that conviction follows him all the days of his life. Depending largely on the seriousness of the offence or the number of offences of which he has been convicted, his record can crop up from time to time and plague him in many different ways, regardless of the exemplary life he may live. Unfortunately with modern methods of recording criminal convictions such as fingerprinting, photography, teletype and the many means of communication between the public and the police as well as among the police forces, and with some other nefarious methods of investigation which I hope are never conducted by government authorities, the record of a conviction lives long after the appropriate punishment has been administered. It comes up in credit applications, employment applications and visa applications. It comes up should a subsequent arrest take place. It comes up in casual conversation and certainly, at times, has even crept into extortion bids. When it does arise it can totally destroy the morale of any person who has the intention of living as a good person, regardless of what he has done in the past. The situation has been the concern of many members of this House.

May 12, 1970
Criminal Records
The occasion should not pass without mentioning the name of the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. The hon. member for Welland (Mr. Tolmie) in the past has not only presented private members' bills with respect to this subject, but has openly advocated and lobbied for reform. The problems obviously facing the government when deciding the policies contained in the bill were, in substance, twofold. First, should a pardon be automatic upon the expiration of a given number of years after the penalty has been paid? Second, in what manner and to what extent can the problem be solved from a practical point of view and with due regard to the administration of justice? To say, on the one hand, that all criminal records that are concerned with an offence which is the subject of a pardon should be erased after a given number of years is one thing, but to be able to do it by practical legislation is another. The bill before us does not provide for an automatic pardon.
The committee heard evidence from the Chairman of the National Parole Board and senior officers of the RCMP. It was quite obvious that an automatic pardon was hardly in the interest of justice. The committee, therefore, accepted the principle of pardons of the nature set out in this bill, namely, that pardon should be granted only after the expiration of a given number of years. This period was set at five years for indictable offences and two years for summary conviction offences. In addition, pardons were to be granted only after an investigation by the National Parole Board into the character of the applicant and the reputation he has enjoyed and developed in the community since the date of the completion of his sentence. This will ensure that those persons who continually choose the company of criminals, whether convicted of an offence or not, do not receive the benefit of the royal prerogative of mercy under this bill. It is specifically designed for those who can truly be said to have rehabilitated themselves from the offence or offences committed in the past. On this principle, I think it is safe to say that there was general agreement in the committee.
A pardon that is granted pursuant to this bill will indicate on the face of that document that an investigation has been made, that the applicant has been found to have been of good behaviour and is thereby pardoned from the offence or offences therein set forth. The effect of the pardon is to vacate the convic-

tion, leaving the applicant as much as possible free of the scar of the past. There was a great deal of discussion in committee which hinged on how far we could go from a practical point of view. The hon. member for Windsor-Walker ville (Mr. MacGuigan) proposed amendments, supported by the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert), which, in effect, would have destroyed a record of criminal convictions for which pardons had been granted.
Although these amendments were certainly well motivated, it was obvious that legislation could not possibly be effective when consideration was given to the vast number of places in which the Parliament of Canada generally has control and where the record might be preserved. The result was that the bill was left in the same language in which it was presented to the House. The destruction of criminal records and the sealing of judicial records remained entirely within the jurisdiction of the Solicitor General (Mr. Mcllraith), those that are so closely controlled and those in the hands of the federal authorities only.
Incidental amendments of note were made in committee. For those following the bill who do not have the committee proceedings, the offences were divided into indictable and summary conviction. Pardons were to be granted after five years for indictable convictions and after two years for summary convictions. The applicant has the right to appear before the National Parole Board to make representations as to why he should get a pardon. In this instance, it will be interesting to see the effect that application has in relation to sections 18 and 28 of the new Federal Courts Act. In addition to those amendments, we provided for any disqualifications to which the applicant was subjected by statute by virtue of his conviction now having been removed.
One of the most important modifications made in committee was that no application form for employment for any position over which the federal government has jurisdiction can contain a question as to whether an applicant has been convicted of an offence if a pardon has been granted for such an offence. It is interesting to note that this applies to the written application form only. It does not preclude the employer, in conversation with his prospective employee, from asking questions of this nature. It was probably in this latter field where the work of the committee has strayed the furthest from what might be said to be the ideal. The greatest
May 12, 1970

difficulty that offenders have in our society today is procuring employment. Employers, to a large extent, still refuse to run the risk of employing someone who has offended the criminal law. The committee found, and I think it is generally agreed, that it is impossible to legislate that employers shall take this risk.
One of the most difficult decisions facing an offender, no matter how straight he has gone after his conviction, is whether upon application for a job he should tell his prospective employer about his past. If he does, very often he will not get the job. If he does not, very often he will lose his job when the employer finds out. The provisions of the present bill do not do as much as we might wish in assisting the applicant in his dilemma, but they do add a basis upon which something can be established. A pardon can state that, for a period of time, a person has been without a recorded criminal offence and for the period of time his conduct was investigated by the National Parole Board he was of good conduct. Therefore, that person was pardoned for the offence which might have been an obstruction to his seeking employment. This provision will certainly have some effect on some of the situations which arise from time to time with regard to convicted persons. However, the real reform with respect to this matter cannot be accomplished by legislation.
I think the government should, as a matter of policy, further assist the people who find themselves in such a position. Even having granted them a pardon, they should provide sufficient funds to agencies such as the John Howard Society and the Elizabeth Fry Society. An officer of either of these organizations should accompany a convicted person to a prospective employer so that the whole circumstance can be discussed and assistance given to the applicant at this very critical moment.
I think this would be a very progressive step in rehabilitation. It might even take place sooner than the five years or two years, as the case may be. There is much more to be done in dealing with the treatment and rehabilitation of offenders. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that this Parliament considers this bill to be but one modest step in the progress to be made.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, I intend to offer the unanimous support of my party for the bill that we are now considering. This gives me an opportunity to amplify what was said earlier when we
Criminal Records
dealt with the other bill about the importance of a committee which learns to work well and effectively, the members of which, although from different parties, share a common inclination toward reform. I think both came together in this particular measure.
e (3:50 p.m.)
It has been reported, and it is quite true, that there were three members, more particularly the hon. member for Windsor-Walker-ville (Mr. MacGuigan) from the government side, the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert) from the NDP, and myself from the Official Opposition, who teamed together to produce a number of changes in the measure which was considered by the committee. In fairness to the hon. members I have mentioned, I should say that they carried the burden of proposing these changes; I simply did not have the time to do it. But I certainly supported their ideas, most of which wound up in the legislation. Perhaps the most important thing is that on summary conviction, after two years, as the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Hogarth) has noted, a person can look for his pardon. I think this is particularly important because a summary conviction is more likely to strike a young person, more likely to strike a person who is a single offender, than to strike any other class under the Criminal Code. We feel, and I believe properly, that it was absolutely unfair for a person to carry on his shoulders for a lifetime something which was done perhaps on the spur of the moment, but in any event at an early age. This change is probably the most significant aspect of the legislation.
There are others. I note, for example, we have done something which would help a person obtain a pardon without going to frightful legal expense, that is, to provide that the parole board shall report in the case of a pardon which would not be granted- perhaps I should not use the words "shall report" but say that the parole board should notify somebody that they can see no reason to grant a pardon. But only at that point would the person looking for the pardon be put to the expense of hiring counsel so that he could make his case properly. While this is perhaps a small point, it does save a person seeking a pardon a certain amount of money. In other cases, the request is put in and it will be processed without any cost to the person concerned except the cost of the stamp and his own time in writing the letter. He knows his fate and will most likely obtain a pardon.

May 12, 1970
Criminal Records
Another amendment concerns the vacating of the conviction. I think this was important. Another amendment, which can be found on page five of the bill, deals with applications for jobs. One of the points in connection with which we were not able to persuade the committee to accept our joint suggestion dealt with the furnishing of information to credit companies. This point was not pursued at the time because the minister assured us it would be dealt with later, or at least that the subject matter would be dealt with in the fall, I gather, when the electronic eavesdropping legislation is brought in. Perhaps I should put this particular suggestion on record, not because it is the law of the land but because the thought behind it may some day be the law of the land, and people should anticipate that this will be an issue in a few months' time in Parliament or in the committee. The proposal was as follows:
No person or firm furnishing information as to the financial credit rating of persons, or to employers as to the qualifications and suitability of their employees or prospective employees, or as to the qualifications and suitability of applicants for insurance or indemnity bonds shall furnish any information relating to the conviction of a person for an offence under an Act of the Parliament of Canada or a regulation made thereunder or disclose the fact of any such conviction at any time when the Board is authorized to make inquiries under subsection (2) of section 4 with respect to such person and in relation to that offence, unless the Minister certifies to the person or firm that proposes to furnish the information or disclose the fact of the conviction that no pardon in respect of the offence has been granted and that no application for such a pardon is under consideration.
As I reach the end of that mouth-breaking sentence, it becomes obvious that the minister or somebody in his department would have been up to his neck in detail writing to all the different credit companies. So, the proposal was probably unworkable in the form submitted.
The troika, if I may call the three of us that, tried to bring this change about, believing it is of importance that people should not be punished in a monetary way because of an offence for which they have served their time or otherwise paid their debt to society. They should not have a bad name hanging over them for the rest of their lives.
Another amendment was brought in making it an offence to violate any provision of the act, for example should somebody reveal that a person had a conviction for which he was subsequently pardoned. We tried to place as stiff a curtain about a person's past as possible in the circumstances.

Finally, there is the schedule which is set forth in the last page of the bill. It is of interest to note there was a long discussion in the committee as to whether the pardon should set forth the offences in respect of which the person was being pardoned or whether it should simply be in general terms. This gave us considerable difficulty; I do not think it is a matter on which it is very easy to make up one's mind. The consensus, as it turned out, was that the offences for which a pardon was being granted should be set forth specifically, I suppose for the very sensible reason that somebody might possibly get a general pardon and not disclose all the offences of which he or she had been guilty in the past.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
I think this has been a classic example of, first, how a good committee can work very effectively, and second, how members can be united by the common bond of public interest even though they are separated by sharp political division. With these thoughts, may I say I think the measure before the House is an example of how well both these approaches have worked, and I commend it to the House for third reading.


Mr. D. R. Tolmie (Welland):: Mr. Speaker, I am very gratified that Bill C-5 has finally arrived at this stage. This concept of expunging a criminal record has had a long and varied history. A private member's bill was introduced in 1966 and went to the justice committee. There were various presentations to the committee which heard representatives from the John Howard Society, from the Magistrates Association and the Chiefs of Police Association. The committee recommended that the principle of expunging criminal records be endorsed, and the present government brought in the bill that is now before this House.
I should like to take this opportunity to congratulate all members of the justice committee. In particular, I should like to pay tribute to the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert) and the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave). As these members have indicated on other occasions, this bill is a splendid example of how members from all parties can co-operate to produce a measure that I think will be for the benefit of all Canadians. I should also like to congratulate the Solicitor General (Mr. Mcll-raith). I must confess that I had certain reservations in connection with the bill, but we sat
May 12, 1970

down and discussed it and initiated amendments. As I have stated, I think we now have a good bill and I appreciate the co-operation shown.
We are ploughing a new field of legislation, and in this respect Canada is a pioneer. The main purpose of this bill is not to coddle criminals. It is simply an endeavour to help thousands of Canadians who in the past, perhaps through no fault of their own, have acquired a criminal record. This criminal record has hounded them for years and has created economic difficulties. We are now making an honest attempt to eliminate these difficulties as much as possible. We feel that the person who has served a term of imprisonment or paid a fine has discharged his debt to society, and that as far as possible he should be restored to his original civil status.
I believe that Professor Gough, professor of law at the University of Santa Clara, in an article in the Washington University Law Quarterly, very well summed up the purpose of this type of bill. I should like to quote his comments on page 149 of the Quarterly:
At the outset, it is necessary to limn with some particularity what expungement is and what it is not. By an expungement statute is meant a legislative provision for the eradication of a record of conviction or adjudication upon fulfilment of prescribed conditions, usually the successful discharge of the offender from probation and the passage of a period of time without further offence. It is not simply a lifting of disabilities attendant upon conviction and a restoration of civil rights, though this is a significant part of its effect. It is rather a redefinition of status, a process of erasing the legal event of conviction or adjudication, and thereby restoring to the regenerate offender his status quo ante.
Very briefly,-I think this point has been explained before- I should like to illustrate how the bill will work. An applicant will apply to the Solicitor General for a pardon. This application will be referred to the parole board. After proper investigation, if the parole board sees fit, the board will grant the applicant a certificate of pardon. I only hope that this proper investigation will in most cases be routine. By that, I mean that I do not think in many cases there should be a physical examination of the applicant in his home town, or wherever he may reside. I think in most cases it should be a scrutiny of the records filed. Based on that information, the pardon or certificate of good behaviour should be granted.
This certificate will aid the applicant in acquiring a visa. Perhaps it will also aid him in his employment. There is a further stipula-
Criminal Records
tion in the bill which provides, in effect, that all authorities over which the Canadian government has jurisdiction must not, once the record has been sealed, release it to the public. I think this is a most worth-while provision. Further, as has been mentioned before, if the record is the result of a summary conviction, the applicant can apply after two years. If the record is the result of an indictable offence, then the applicant must wait five years.
The main provision in the bill which, in my opinion, will assist those who are applying is the one that makes it mandatory for all government agencies that employ people not to ask the specific question: "Have you got a criminal record?" Instead they must ask a qualified question, such as: "Do you have a criminal record for which you do not have a pardon?", or something of that nature. This question is qualified and will enable the person who does not have a record, as well as the person who had one but who has been pardoned, to answer no. I think this is a most worth-while, indeed essential, provision.
This, of course, is not the final answer as far as helping people who have had criminal records is concerned. These people still have difficulty in obtaining a bond. The Solicitor General has taken a step in this direction by assisting certain agencies to provide bonds to those who have had criminal records. But I think we must go further and we should have a government bonding service to assist those people who have had criminal records in obtaining bonds.
In addition, provincial legislation in this field is required. This legislation applies only to those agencies over which the federal government has control. It will not apply to individual and corporate employers. I have talked to the attorney general of the province of Ontario, and the government of that province has shown some interest in this type of legislation. Again, I urge the Solicitor General to approach the attorneys general of the various provinces to see whether they would enact some type of complementary legislation.
Perhaps the greatest benefit that will flow from this statute is education. By that, I mean that it will show Canadians that our government is interested in the plight of the former offender; that it is willing to trust him; that the people of Canada want to accept him in the mainstream of society; that we believe it to be wrong and cruel to penalize an offender for life when he has already paid his debt to society.

May 12, 1970
Criminal Records
Professeur Gough well expounds the need for expungment of criminal records, and I should like to quote again his words as they appear at page 161 of the Quarterly:
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
If the offender is to be rehabilitated, two things must be done: he must be made a part of groups emphasizing values conducive to reform and law-abiding conduct, and he must concurrently be alienated from groups whose values are conducive to criminality. Neither of these goals is furthered by the failure of the law to provide means of restoring status.
In sum, there has been insufficient recognition of the responsibility of the penal law in alleviating the corrosive effects of the stigma its application necessarily creates. Dean Joseph Lohman of the University of California School of Criminology, a former sheriff of Cook County, Illinois, has written: "There is too little concern with the stigmatizing and alienating effect of arrests of such violators (minor offenders, especially first offenders). We equate them with bank robbers and murderers. Once a youngster has a police record, this fact, in the eyes of the law-and potential employers-is more real than the person himself. People stop looking at a young man. They look at his record, his "sheet" as it is called. Over and over boys told me, "It isn't me; it's the sheet. They won't listen to me." We have pushed these boys on the other side of the law. They may well stay there".
In a very real sense, the problem is one of the "self-fulfilling prophecy":	the offender initially moved toward reform becomes what we condemn him to be. The failure of the law to treat the former offender as a person with the potential to become a law-abiding and useful member of society, by omitting means of removing the infamy of his social standing, deprives him of an incentive to reform. To the extent that this shortcoming contributes to the repetition of criminal conduct, it renders the system of penal law a "monument to futility" and tends to erode public confidence in the legal order.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, again I congratulate the committee. I also congratulate the Solicitor General for introducing this bill. This is needed reform. It is forward-looking and will benefit many Canadians. I urge its speedy passage.


Mr. Gordon Sullivan (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to be allowed a few moments to speak about the criminal records bill. The legislation proposed by this government with respect to expunging criminal records after review and following a term of good behaviour is, in my opinion, one of the most humane and overdue changes ever to affect those who have erred against society. It will, if accepted, make Canada a leader in the treatment of a person who has committed a crime and who, to coin a phrase, has paid his debt. For having proposed this legislation, this government deserves the applause of all

those connected with the world of criminology. For having first brought this matter before the House in the form of a private member's bill, the present chairman of the Justice Committee, the respected member for Welland, (Mr. Tolmie) deserves special commendation. He has worked hard and long since June of 1966 to get this type of legislation passed.
Civilized mankind should be ever aware of the need for punishment of those members of our society who offend against it. Perhaps at this point in time, the twentieth century, it is our responsibility as members of civilized society to punish more severely than in the past those who are the authors of crime. Perhaps in this twentieth century more emphasis should be placed on the exemplary aspect of a penalty than on the punishment aspect. Perhaps penalties can serve a multitude of masters embracing punishment, example and correction. However, we are not here to debate punishments per se. I direct my remarks toward the permanent nature of those penalities meted out by our judiciary. Surely, we have matured beyond that line where we punish forever those who are guilty. Surely, as intelligent persons we are able to differentiate between punishment and vindictiveness. Surely, in this twentieth century of enlightenment and rapid advancement, we are not so savage that we condemn a man forever for an offence for which he already has paid his debt. I suggest that a criminal record, as recognized under our present legislation, does that exactly; that is, condemns him forever.
I recently had an experience with a man who, 50 years ago, went joy riding with a horse and buggy during a church service on a hot summer day. This man, then a boy, took another's horse and enjoyed the cool breeze rather than dutifully sitting through the sermon. The sermon was cut short because of the heat and the very irate owner was waiting for the lad when he returned to the front of the church. The boy was convicted and served nine months in jail for his transgression. Some 50 years later this man's daughters wanted him to join them in residence in the United States. Because of the existence of the criminal record, his only encounter with the law, the man was put to great trouble and much embarrassment, and all of this because of a joy ride on a hot summer day 50 years ago. This type of nonsense is the reason for the proposed change in the bill before us today.
The need for such change has been recognized for years, recommended and fought for
May 12, 1970

by the two most prominent jurists from our own Hamilton area. We perhaps are more indebted to such persons as His Honour Judge Walter Tuchtie of the criminal division of the provincial court at Hamilton and George Street, who I am delighted to see in the balcony today, the present chairman of the parole board, than we are aware. Both these gentlemen have painstakingly shown concern and desire over the years for such a program as our legislation now proposes. We, the people of Canada, owe them a debt of gratitude. A parole board empowered to review criminal records could well serve as the threshold. Records are reviewable. Under this bill, application can be made after a period of years to have the records expunged. The character of the offence, the behaviour of the holder and the tastes of the time as well as the other factors, well known to most members here, would be most meaningful in determining such a review. Records should be sealed, not destroyed. I do not stand here so naive as to suggest that the RCMP should not retain in its confidential files such relevant information as contained in a criminal record. But no employer, credit bureau or insurance company should enjoy this access except in exceptional circumstances.
Today, too often, citizens suffer because of some offence committed years ago, long after the penalty has been served and the person is completely rehabilitated. Often a credit report discloses, or an application form asks, about an old conviction and good citizens are embarrassed or a job lost or a bond turned down. This bill aims to prevent these unfair and cruel results by forbidding, once the record is sealed, this information from being disclosed or even requested. I hope, as the hon. member for Welland (Mr. Tolmie) mentioned, that the provincial governments will follow with appropriate legislation to close the remaining gaps. Our system of penalty should only prescribe that a convicted individual suffer punishment and pay his debt while confined to one of our federal or provincial institutions. Having paid his debt, sometimes in such archaic institutions as St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary which, in my opinion, should be closed down immediately, a man should be released. This release, to be meaningful, must be total.
A short while ago members of the Justice and Legal Affairs Committee inspected St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary at Montreal and I should like to make a comment about that at this time. I think, Mr. Speaker, we were all
Criminal Records
shocked at the conditions there, particularly in the psychiatric ward. In this ward were sick men kept in small, almost dark cells. The conditions were deplorable. We are keeping men in cells, not suitable even for animals. In my opinion, the staff was inadequate. We were told that there is a gradual phasing out of this penitentiary, but I urge the Solicitor General (Mr. Mcllraith) to accelerate the present plans which I understand call for the closing in two years' time. Since we visited there, I understand there have been two cases of suicide at this place and I hope that the present government will take immediate steps to remedy this situation.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I commend Bill C-5 to this House as one of the most progressive and humane in our time.


John Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, you probably noticed a tendency to reminisce this afternoon because some of us feel that we have achieved part of our goal in this very important matter. I would say that in particular the hon. member for Welland (Mr. Tolmie) should be given full marks for the great efforts he has made in connection with this matter. I recall that in 1966 he introduced a private members bill with regard to expunging criminal records. The popular word at the time was "expunge". Expert witnesses appeared before the committee and we made a report. We received tremendous encouragement from the former solicitor general and a promise that legislation would come forth implementing some of the recommendations of the committee. That did not happen, and the former solicitor general was subsequently appointed to the Supreme Court of Ontario. Subsequently, the Ouimet Commission studied the matter of criminal records and came forth with an excellent report.
I will say right now that I want to commend the present Solicitor General (Mr. Mcllraith) for his fine efforts in connection with this bill. It so happened that when it came up for second reading I was away with a bad case of the flu, and I did not have the opportunity of participating in the debate. Later, at a committee meeting, I expressed my moral indignation by attempting to kick the Solicitor General in the shins for his approach to the matter because I felt that, even though we did not adopt the concept of expunction, I thought that probably we should pick up the idea expressed in the Ouimet Commission report with regard to annulment. The Solid-

May 12, 1970
Criminal Records
tor General had brought forth in his bill the idea of a pardon, indicating forgiveness. I was not satisfied with that approach at the time. I must say that at one time the Solicitor General indicated a rigidity and inflexibility with which I was not too happy, and other members of the committee felt likewise. Since then, however, he has shown an open-mindedness and an understanding with regard to this problem.
Again, I want to say that I am very happy that the Solicitor General is guiding this bill through the House. I am sure he would want me to say that some credit should be given to the chairman of the parole board for his assistance in this matter as well as to the deputy minister, Mr. Hollies, who showed a real appreciation of the problem. Even though at times he attempted to defend an unsupportable position, he showed the goodness and graciousness that a deputy minister can show at times. The result was that by setting up a troika of a representative from the Conservative party, a representative from the Liberal party and a representative from my party, we managed to formulate amendments which give this bill added strength. This is what is needed. The Solicitor General showed wisdom in accepting those amendments. Today, we have before us the bill for third reading. It will have a tremendous impact on many Canadians across Canada.
In the past, we treated criminals as a breed apart. Many Canadians said they deserved punishment and deserve to be branded as criminals for the rest of their lives. But in the last few years changes have taken place. Responsible and respectable citizens in Canada have been convicted of criminal offences, such as impaired driving. One can also recall fraud and bankruptcy offences being committed by responsible and respectable citizens within the community. In addition, many high school and university students have been convicted on drug charges. In the minds of many Canadians, the time has come when things must be corrected. I am sure that this bill is the result of the impact of convictions upon a particular section, the middle and the upper classes in our society. The greatest impact is upon the members of the poorer classes. It has been said many times that a criminal convinction has a very restrictive effect on a person's employment, a person's bonding and a person's freedom to travel. We have come forth with a bill which provides that after two years of good behaviour a person who has been convicted of a

summary offence can apply for a pardon, and after five years of good behaviour he may apply for a pardon in the case of an indictable offence.
I should like to say that the Ouimet Commission report was excellent, not only in the field of criminal records but in the total field of criminal law as well as the treatment of prisoners. One realizes that the members of the commission have gone into this subject in depth. They made a separation between summary and indictable offences, and their recommendation was that after two years the record of the former should be wiped out automatically, and after five years and a full hearing the record of the latter should be wiped out. We have not gone that far. When I reread the recommendations of the Ouimet Commission, I noted they said that, not only should the record be wiped out automatically after two years with regard to summary conviction but that as experience accumulated consideration should be given to broadening that category to include other offences.
Again, I must give the Solicitor General credit for undertaking to the committee members to review this legislation after a few years. I hope that after having experience with these applications we may again review this matter in depth, not only when the minister's estimates are before the House but also after two or three years.
An amendment has been proposed with regard to the cross-examination of witnesses, which again flows from the recommendations of the Ouimet Commission. The amendment provides that the cross-examination of a witness in any proceeding over which Parliament has jurisdiction concerning a previous conviction should have regard for the category of the conviction. Again we did not go that far in this bill, but we received an undertaking, not only from the Solicitor General but from the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner), that the Canada Evidence Act would be reviewed in depth and that probably the matter of cross-examination of witnesses concerning previous convictions will be studied either by the law reform commission or by some other committee established for this purpose. Therefore, the great troika within the committee and their supporting members withdrew their insistence with regard to this item.
Previous speakers have mentioned the results that will flow from this bill in the area of employment. All of us welcome what will follow, and I will not dwell on that now. It
May 12, 1970

has been said that many legal disabilities arising from a criminal record relate to property and civil rights, which fall within provincial jurisdiction. I urge the Solicitor General to take the initiative in arranging discussions between the federal government and the provincial governments with regard to rehabilitation in matters which fall under provincial control. I hope the Solicitor General will take the initiative with regard to employment and appointment forms, so that there may be uniformity across Canada. We can only achieve that uniformity through the initiative of the Solicitor General in asking the Attorneys General of the provinces to introduce complementary legislation in the provincial legislatures. Therefore, I am asking that he take the initiative in this important aspect. If he does not, he must know he will be on the carpet the next time he appears before the committee.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
The Solicitor General does not like strong criticism. He does like constructive criticism but, as I say, he does not like the strong, biting criticism that we at times tend to give him. I may say he will receive that criticism if he does not take an initiative in this field.
There is also the impediment with respect to travel in connection with criminal pardons. As the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Hogarth) pointed out, there are four different types of pardon, and the conditional pardon is the one usually granted by the Solicitor General on the advice or recommendation of the Chairman of the parole board. But now, we are going to shift the emphasis with regard to pardons. The Solicitor General knows that U.S. immigration authorities will not recognize a conditional pardon for immigration purposes. Therefore, I say he must again take the initiative to consult with U.S. authorities, and authorities in other countries, to reach agreement on international standards with regard to rehabilitation, without restrictions on travel between different countries being imposed on those granted pardons. Many young men who may hope to achieve pardons under this bill will encounter travel difficulties if the minister does not take the initiative to achieve agreement with U.S. and other authorities in respect of their pardons.
I see that the chairman of the parole board is in the gallery. I hope that he is swamped with so many applications for pardons that he will have to engage extra staff. In the past, there was a sort of limiting approach with regard to conditional pardons, and although a
Criminal Records
job has been done and probably a good job, there is a great deal of room for improvement. I think that he and his officials will exercise good judgment with regard to the type of investigations that will be necessary concerning the different offences that have been committed.
I recall a young fellow who had a long list of convictions, and who had rehabilitated himself. Now, he is married. He has a family, and is working steadily. He made an application on my initiative for a conditional pardon. One day he was having lunch with his foreman when a person came in and asked to speak to the foreman in private. It so happened that it was about the fellow with whom the foreman was having lunch. He got assurance from the foreman that this young man had rehabilitated himself, was steadily employed, and was accepting his responsibilities in the community. The good feature of it all was that the young man had told his employer about his convictions, and so the foreman was prepared for the inquiry.
A judicious, neat approach is required in these matters so that an investigation may not upset the good relations existing between an applicant and his employer. I hope the chairman of the parole board will instruct his men, when they make investigations, to do so with all cleverness and quietness.
I wish to say one final word concerning the form of a pardon. The conditional pardon granted today lists the convictions of the person concerned, and then in archaic but humble language says that the person is forgiven with regard to these offences. I and other hon. members attempted to have this form changed in the committee. We felt that the list of convictions should not appear in the pardon. If a man had established good behaviour over a period, we felt he should be given a certificate worthy of showing not only to his own family but to his employer and others. If we list his convictions we may be destroying the full effect of his pardon. I hope that the Solicitor General and the chairman of the parole board will devise a pardon form that an applicant may show freely to his family, his employer, and other members of the community. One would not want the pardon in the form of a B.A. degree or M.A. degree from a university. One would not want it given in that type of language, but rather in the type of language whereby we as a community say to the applicant, "We know you made a mistake in the past. We know

May 12. 1970
Criminal Records
you have paid the price. We know that you are now a man of good conduct and good behaviour. We are proud to give you this pardon in recognition of your rehabilitation." I hope the day soon approaches when we can achieve that result.


Mr. F. J. Bigg (Pembina):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to see the changes that are made in Bill C-5. I hasten to say I am in favour of the principle of the bill, but there are one or two points I wish to put before the House. I am a little bit confused about how you can give a person a conditional pardon. To me, a pardon is either a pardon or it is not.
There are some cases in which a man could not expect to receive a pardon. As broadminded as I am, and I consider myself very broadminded and forward-looking, there is no such thing as paying your debt to society for certain offences. I shall refer to only one or two. Take the case of a serious sex offence against a child. No term of imprisonment, no punishment with a whip, no fine can turn back the pages of time and restore that child to its physical and mental health. There is no question of whether he has paid his debt to society, it cannot be done.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
On the other hand, I rule out revenge. Because some weak minded individual or some sadistic and cruel person perpetrates such an offence, is no reason why society should stoop to his level. He must be segregated for a period of time to try to find the reason for his action. He must be given the opportunity to have the medical attention which is often necessary in such cases, and he must be offered the understanding of people trained in social work. We hope all this will help rehabilitate him. If he has committed an offence like this, society owes him nothing except the humanitarian attempt to rehabilitate him.
I do not think that five years is long enough to completely expunge the record in such cases. If you do that, or give him a certificate of merit, it is quite possible that he might seek employment at one of our institutions which care for the mentally ill. He might even get preferred treatment unless it were made very plain that a person who has been found guilty of this type of offence is unemployable under some circumstances. It is not society's fault that he has done this thing. It is not society's fault that the record cannot 
be completely expunged. It is not society's fault that he has put himself in a position where he is no longer to be trusted with the care of the very young, the old, or the mentally weak, of people who have no protection against him. In such circumstances, it might be a case of a child's word against his or that of a person who is mentally deficient or very old. I do not intend to go into case histories this afternoon but they are well known.
The second type of offence which I think should rarely, if ever, be removed from the record is an offence against our country. A man who is guilty of treason-I do not mean treason against the person of the Queen necessarily, but treason against the right of free democracy in Canada-should not get a pardon after five years of good behaviour in my opinion.
Of course, I know that within this act there is that protection. Nevertheless, Clause 5(b) of Bill C-5 reads in part:
-unless the pardon is subsequently revoked, vacates the conviction in respect of which it is granted and, without restricting the generality of the foregoing, removes any disqualification to which the person so convicted is, by reason of such conviction, subject by virtue of any act of the Parliament-
I am thinking in particular of hiring for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. If a man has been guilty of treason against Canada, I do not think five years or any period of time would make him a fit person to be entrusted with the security of our country. If we cannot trust the commissioner of the mounted police and those who work under him, we cannot trust anybody.
Though I agree with the general spirit of this bill, perhaps a subclause should be added somewhere to the effect "except in such cases where the said statute is directly aimed at protecting the security of Canada." You can read that into the subsequent clauses of the bill but it is not there in black and white. One would gather from reading clause 5 that nobody was to be disqualified from being hired for any job in Canada, providing he had five years of good behaviour and had satisfied the board of this fact.
I am glad that the bill has been amended so that we draw distinctions between summary conviction cases and indictable offences. Of course, unless you are guilty of an indictable offence you do not go to jail for the periods of time which would qualify you for the more serious sections in this bill. I think we should have a paragraph which spells out those very
May 12, 1970

Criminal Records
few cases where you cannot pay your debt to society, where you cannot rehabilitate yourself to the level of a person who has never been guilty of a serious offence.
We need a little flexibility and I see it here in the bill. I should not like to see the bill so rigid that it demands that the board accept people in positions relating to security or the care of the young, the weak or the mentally crippled. There is a great need for a man with a criminal record to be employed, but I doubt very much whether a certificate stating that he has been rehabilitated would do him any good. I think there should be changes in the law. Perhaps we should enact statutes to the effect that a man may not be deprived of employment when his crime has been strictly against property, such as theft, borrowing a bicycle, infringements of the traffic act or the liquor act.
Perhaps even those people who try marijuana and who are convicted under the Narcotic Control Act should be treated in an entirely different way from those desperate and unspeakable criminals who destroy the bodies and souls of our young people for their own aggrandizement. I would have no hesitation in writing into the bill the broadest acceptance of the experimental quality of youth, and the fact that they can rehabilitate themselves very rapidly. However, the drug pusher, the importer and those who enable them to carry on their trade, should not have their records expunged after five years of good behaviour. I cannot be convinced that after this short time they should be able to qualify for positions in charge of young people or, say, for employment with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to train the preventive service squad.
The protection of the public must remain our paramount concern, no matter how forward-looking we might regard ourselves, or how progressive. Rehabilitation must always stand ahead of revenge. There is no place in Canadian society for revenge. You are listening to a man who knows, having spent 25 years of public service in the police force. I have never seen Canadian society edging forward one inch towards being brutal. It is not given to revenge, nor even to self-righteousness. The protection of the public is another matter, however, and I know the board will do its best to protect Canada. I want to make sure that the present bill, or any amendments that might be introduced in future, will protect the security of Canada. The lives and health of our young people come first and we
want to make sure that humanitarian considerations are not allowed to frustrate the board's attempts to keep us on sane ground.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I think I have the distinction of being just about the only non-lawyer who is interested in this matter and, therefore, I will probably not agree with many of the things which have been said. This is a lawyer's piece of legislation and its results in years to come may remind people of the sort of thing which happened yesterday. Someone who has been convicted at 17 years of age of possessing marijuana may find five years later when looking for a job that he faces great difficulty, even if he has tried to erase the stigma of the conviction.
The hon. member speaking before me was talking about the hardened criminal who wears his convictions as a badge, finds them of advantage, and secures criminal employment on the strength of them. I am not speaking of people like that; I am speaking of young people who have been convicted in their youth and in later years find it is a very serious matter.
The legislation before us contains nothing new. We already have parole provisions. I can remember a young lad who was convicted of a matter involving a calf. There was some question about the calf's parentage. At long last the police agreed that he was probably innocent of that charge but guilty of the two or three charges that had been dropped. After a lot of trouble, it was decided to pardon the lad. He said "I don't want your pardon because I was not guilty in the first place". Clearly, pardons have been kicking around for a long time.
It seems to me that in the last few days several pieces of legislation have been introduced by private members that were 100 per cent better than legislation which was introduced after a committee had held great discussions on it. The legislation, suggested by the hon. member for Welland (Mr. Tolmie), who originally proposed this idea, was good. The present legislation before us is not worth a damn. If you want to expunge criminal records in the way suggested by this bill, then I say this bill is not really of any value. When the hon. member for Welland talked about expunging records, he meant what he said. He wanted criminal records to disappear. In the province of Ontario, if I am convicted of speeding, I lose three points. If I make a turn

May 12, 1970
Criminal Records
without giving proper signals, I lose another three. But, Mr. Speaker, after a time, if I behave myself while driving my car, those points are returned to me.
The Solicitor General (Mr. Mcllraith) has been around long enough to know that if he wishes to do anything worth while in this field, he must expunge convictions. If you have paid the penalty that the law demands, you should not have to go on paying forever. If the province of Ontario did not return to a driver the points he loses, eventually it would mean that drivers would either have to be allowed a loss of five or seven points a year, or else no one would possess a driving licence.
I am sure the hon. member for Welland was thinking of individual cases in which young people have done something bad, been punished, and later sought to remove the stigma of the conviction. As a non-lawyer, I suggest that the last place in the world to place the burden in this matter is with the National Parole Board. Let me illustrate what will happen if you seek a pardon. Let us say that I was convicted of bank robbery when I was 18 years old. Nobody knows about this now. I live in another community. I have been living properly, working hard and have given up my profession of robbing banks. Let us say a number of years have gone by. No one knows I have been in jail-I have a healthy tan now-and I go to the parole board for a pardon. And what does that body do? Immediately it gets in touch with people who are involved with credit ratings and tries to find out about my financial situation. The board will then write to the police in the community and will say such and such a man was convicted ten or 15 years ago in such and such an area of robbing a bank; would you check around and see if he has been in trouble in your area. The board would make all kinds of inquiries.
Finally, it would send me a nice piece of paper saying, "You robbed a bank in such and such a year, but you have not robbed another, and to prove this you may show people this piece of paper." That is what this measure boils down to. That reminds me of the guy who came out of the insane asylum. He told people who said he was a little odd, "I am not crazy; maybe the rest of you are crazy, but I am not because I have a piece of paper proving I am not crazy, and it is from a mental institution." That is just about the

kind of thing that will happen if the parole board is involved in the rating of pardons.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow)- labour conditions-prospective layoff of C.P.R. clerks-legislation based on Freedman report; the hon. member for Surrey (Mr. Mather)-consumer affairs-survey of cost and quality of car repairs; the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Skoberg)-external affairs-method of making representations to other nations.

It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business listed in today's order paper, namely public bills, private bills and notices of motions.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, April 24, consideration of Bill C-29, respecting Canada Day (Title amended to read An Act respecting Confederation Day), as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, and Motion No. 1 (Mr. Gibson).
Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, when we were debating this matter on April 24, I still had some time remaining at my disposal so I should like to continue the argument I was presenting at that time. I was suggesting that there was absolutely no need at all for us to be fiddling with our traditions and institutions in the manner suggested by the motion of the hon. member. I know we
May 12, 1970

sire living in a time of change when it seems all our institutions and traditions are threatened.


Mr. Yves Forest (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: The Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Forest) on a point of order.


Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, I see that the hon. member for Brandon-Souris has taken part in the debate on the motion on April 24 last and that according to Hansard, at page 6277, you interrupted him to remind him that his time had expired. I suggest the hon. member is not allowed to speak once again on the same motion.


Mr. Speaker:: My understanding is that the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dins-dale) was interrupted to advise him that the time allotted for the consideration of private members' business had expired. In any event, I am advised by the learned counsel at the table that the time has not expired.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I do not know why my hon. friend would try to prevent me from expressing myself on this matter. Since I last spoke on the subject I have had considerable response on the stand I took. In fact, I received a surprising response which reflected the point which I was bringing out when the debate concluded on April 24. Most of the letters came from western Canada.
We happen to be in a very special situation in western Canada, particularly in the province of Manitoba where we are celebrating our centennial this year. The citizens of the province of Manitoba regard an initiative of this kind as an unnecessary intrusion into the celebration of the part that Manitoba has played in the gradual evolutionary development of the Dominion of Canada.
There are some differences of opinion among those who wish to change the tradition. Some want to change the name of Canada's birthday, July 1, from Dominion Day to Confederation Day. Others want to call it Canada Day. I think the present amendment that we are debating favours the notion of Confederation Day.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: No.
The amendment favours Canada Day.
Canada Day


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Then, we are actually debating Canada Day. It becomes quite confusing when you start fiddling about with these institutions. To those who prefer Confederation Day, I say that this is more American in its connotation than Canadian. Confederation was first espoused on this continent by the United States of America. Any attempt to change a good Canadian name like Dominion Day to Confederation Day would be committing one of those unpardonable sins of introducing Americanism into the true north, strong and free.
I do not see why in this day and age it should be called Canada Day. We have successfully completed the celebration of Canada's centennial of Confederation in 1967. We are now moving into the second stage of celebrations. As I have already indicated, Manitoba and the Northwest Territories will this year be celebrating the centennial of their entrance into the Dominion of Canada. I do not see the necessity of straining at the word "Canada". For those of us who have not been nurtured in either Upper or Lower Canada, we regard every day as Canada Day.


Mr. Gibson:: The polls indicate the people want it.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Every day is Canada Day so why should we isolate one day, our birthday, which goes back to the traditions of the founding fathers and designate a name that was peculiar to only two parts of Canada at that time? Canada is more than Upper and Lower Canada. I know that most Canadians from Upper and Lower Canada in this House are strongly in support of the change to Canada Day, but Canada is more than two provinces.
Our founding fathers named it a Dominion stretching from sea to sea. This was the term used by our founding fathers. Why do we want to dabble with this subtle, stealthy erosion of traditions which have been established in this country for over 100 years? The hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. Gibson) says the polls indicate that the majority of Canadians favour a change. I happen to have seen the report of the survey conducted by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Blair) which indicated that the people in his riding were overwhelmingly in favour of the traditional and historical name Dominion Day for our July 1 celebrations. If the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth will consult with the hon. member for Gren-ville-Carleton, I am sure the fact will be con-

May 12, 1970
Canada Day
firmed that the poll he conducted was strongly in favour of the retention rather than the disruption of our historical traditions.


Colin David Gibson: Let's have a vote.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I can certainly report that that is the sentiment in western Canada.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is
the hon. member sure of that?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Sure of what?


Stanley Howard Knowles: That that is the sentiment of Western Canada.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I can only speak for my own
constituency. I am surprised at the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), in Manitoba's centennial year, consenting to this stealthy erosion of the historic traditions of Canada. On July 15, the citizens of Manitoba will be celebrating Manitoba Day. This is related to the specific historic incident when Manitoba entered the Confederation of the Dominion of Canada in 1870. I would imagine that When the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta reach their centennial celebrations, which will not be until the year 2005, because there was a gradual unfolding of the development of nationhood in Canada, they will likely refer to the day of their entrance into Confederation as Saskatchewan Day and Alberta Day respectively.
At the present moment in the city of Lethbridge a group of concerned Canadians are discussing our historic and traditional past. I think the sentiment that will be emerging from that conference will be for the retention of the traditions that have in this gradual evolutionary process brought forward a part of Canada, the western provinces, particularly the Prairies, that voluntarily joined the Dominion of Canada. They are proud to celebrate July 1 as equal partners of this system of Confederation that stretches from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Rather than concern themselves with dabbling in these unnecessary invasions into our history and traditions, I recommend that the hon. gentlemen from Upper and Lower Canada make a pilgrimage to Manitoba this summer. I extend a particularly warm invitation to the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth who is most vociferous in this matter. I am sure if he visited Manitoba, particularly on July 1 or July 15, he would acquire a new, broader and more imaginative approach to the magnitude

and greatness of this nation. I am sure he will become aware that Canada extends from the Atlantic to the Pacific-from sea to sea.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)


Colin David Gibson: On a point of order. The hon. member has issued an invitation. May I say I have already accepted one for Canada Day in my own riding. Ten thousand people will be there.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: That is hardly a point of order, but it gives me an opportunity to point out to the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) that his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I note there is a disposition on the part of some hon. members to allow the hon. member to continue.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: They don't want to go west.


Robert Jardine McCleave: I have a point of order. When the hon. member for Brandon-Souris was concluding his speech he was interrupted on a phoney point of order by the vociferous member for Hamilton-Wentworth, and was prevented from giving the House his concluding words. Surely, if the Chair does not take into account the fact that time can be eaten up in a stealthy fashion, any member can be deprived of the right to make his point.


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: That is exactly the sort of consideration the Chair invariably tries to take into account.


Mr. J. E. Brown (Brant):: I hope the House will permit me to make a statement in support of my bill at this stage.
Across the country there are a number of organizations which are asking that a bill to establish our July 1 holiday as Canada Day be passed by the House of Commons. Chief among these is the national organization of Jaycees. I greatly admire this organization as a worth while body of aggressive young businessmen who wisely have made the naming of Canada Day a major project. They are to be commended for their initiative and enterprise and for their faith in the future of Canada.
I believe in this bill. I also believe in the amendment which was made in committee which would maintain the observance of the holiday of July 1, except when it falls upon a
May 12. 1970

Sunday. There is one point I wish to emphasize: it does not, nor, indeed, could it, abolish the use of the word "Dominion". That word is embedded in our constitution, which provides that three provinces-


An hon. Member:: Four.


James Elisha Brown: -three provinces at that time, should unite-and now coming to the important part, and I quote, "under the name of Canada."
What this bill does is simply to change the name of our national holiday from "Dominion Day" to "Canada Day". Nothing else. Canada is the name of our country, not an expression of how it is composed, or of its nature. I ask for the support of the House for my bill. I also ask for the general support of the various political parties which compose the House of Commons. May I express the hope that we shall vote on the subject this afternoon? Surely, there has been ample time for consideration; surely there is no need for further discussion. The various parties represented here have given us their point of view with respect to the subject matter of the debate. May I thank all those who have taken part in this discussion, particularly those who have supported the measure? I trust no hon. member will oppose the bill simply because it happens that a Liberal Member of Parliament has proposed it. I do not think this will happen. I believe this bill will pass the House of Commons. I am sure it will receive the support of the majority of the Liberal members.
I am indeed grateful for the support which has been given it to date by members of the New Democratic Party. In particular, I am grateful that none other than the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) should have moved the amendment which was placed on the Order Paper to restore the name "Canada Day" to the bill after it had been taken out in committee. As I say, I am grateful, partly because of the hon. member's background knowledge of our country and its institutions, and not only of our country but of its history, and not only of our country and its history but of the rules and procedures of this House. So, I am appreciative of the demonstration of support by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I believe his party has shown great wisdom and understanding of Canada in backing this bill to date.
Now, may I say a word about the Rallie-ment des Creditistes? At a time of national 22375-17J
Canada Day
distress, the Creditistes and their leader have won our hearts with their display of loyalty and dedication to the development of Canada both at home and abroad.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


James Elisha Brown: I wish to say, now, that I support with all my heart the contribution and attitude of the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. Gibson).


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: A great statesman.


James Elisha Brown: He was the member who moved the actual amendment to restore the name of Canada Day to the bill after it had been changed in committee. With more of his buoyancy, with more of his faith in the future of Canada, I say that this country should go far. I contrast his words with the timid and, could I say, mid-Victorian utterances we have heard? He has shown his belief in Canada, not in the Canada of yesterday, but in the Canada of today, and in the Canada of tomorrow as far as it can be projected. I believe that in doing this the hon. member has provided a service that is an example to us all.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
May I suggest that we give paramount consideration to the needs of today rather than attempting to follow in the footsteps of the Fathers of Confederation, beloved though they may be.


Mr. Alkenkrack:: Forget about them!


James Elisha Brown: I will not forget the Fathers of Confederation. I respect them. But I am thinking of the Canada that we are discussing in this bill. In this regard, what province has recently shown more life, more spirit, and more desire to have its citizens remain Canadians than the great province of Quebec? All of us in Canada salute our brothers and sisters in Quebec for their very definite decision, made only two weeks ago, to remain part of this country and to play their part in the nation's life, as they have in the past. They have provided a shining example and pointed the way for the rest of us to follow if we are best to serve our country. All hon. members who share the same viewpoint as the majority of the people of the province of Quebec will support the bill that is presently before us.
Some may wonder why I, coming from a heavily Anglicized constituency like Brant, Ontario, have consented to present this bill.

May 12, 1970
Canada Day
In addition to the people of Quebec, who want one Canada, there are those people who came to this country during the last century from various countries in Europe and have chosen Canada to be their home. In the county of Brant, which I have the honour to represent in this House, there are large numbers of such people. To itemize but a few of them, we have people of German descent, of Polish descent, of Italian descent, of Hungarian descent, of Ukrainian descent and Dutch descent. All of them love this country. I say most decidedly that I have not forgotten these people who have shown loyalty, devotion and dedication to this country and to its future. They have expressed themselves to me in large numbers as supporting the bill that is presently before the House. The word "Canada" being an Indian name, my Six Nations constituents, original Canadians, must be elated at the suggestion that July 1 be renamed "Canada Day". The word "Canada" is taken from their language, their own background and traditions.
Canada is not directed today by a dead hand. Sir Samuel Leonard Tilley was a great man in his day, but we are shortly to enter the last quarter of the 20th century, and I would ask whether we are going to have our future perhaps curtailed or abridged by 19th century solecisms or by sources who know not the Canada of today. Even at the time of confederation Sir John Macdonald would, in my view, have jettisoned the word "dominion" quickly had his chief collaborator, Sir Georges Etienne Cartier, tipped him off, as it were, that he could not get away with it.
Since this is a private member's bill, let us not permit it to be made a government bill if we can possibly prevent it. I believe, as I have always believed, in Parliament as an institution. Therefore, let us demonstrate that private Members of Parliament have as much impact today on the life of the nation as one might be led to expect in an ideal Parliament.

Well, Mr. Speaker, let us all walk together towards the glorious future that awaits our beloved country.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: various terms wherever reference is made to "Dominion Day." It is interesting to note that the sponsor of the bill and the movers of the amendments all bear names of Anglo-Saxon origin. Why is this? We of other origins do not wish the name of our national holiday to be changed; neither do the majority of the people of Anglo-Saxon origin. "Dominion" is the very title of our country. For those who might be resentful of a suggestion that we are a British dominion, I say that this country never was a British dominion in a civic or corporate sense. It was originally, in its infancy, a French colony. After 1759 it became a British colony as a result of circumstances beyond our control, and in 1867 it became a self-governing country with equal opportunity for everyone under the British Crown.
To those members of the House who associate the word "Dominion" with domination by Britain, I say this is a misconception. In fact, there is more attempt at our domination today by other foreign countries. Britain, the founder of responsible government and the mother of our system of government, is far too discreet to attempt domination.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: She is the mother of freedom.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: Britain has never dominated this country in the way some people indicate. The child, Canada, is now a man: all domination died with the end of the First Great War and the passing of the Statute of Westminster. We 21 million Canadians dominate the northern half of the North American continent. This country is a confederation of ten provinces, the Yukon and the Northwest Territories, each a vast dominion in its own boundaries, each fearless and free in directing and electing its own destiny. All at the same time are linked together by one dominion government. This government possesses all the necessary powers to deal with our 3J million square miles of dominion territory and to deal with the rest of the world.
Let us continue to be known as the Dominion of Canada. I say to the people, "You have found it good; do not abandon it". The name "Dominion Day", moreover, is much more pleasing to the ear than "Confederation Day" or other names. It is alliterative and euphonious. We note with pride that the Fathers of Confederation drew considerable inspiration from spiritual sources and insisted on something that would mark the new and higher status of the federation of the four original provinces. They took from Psalm 72 the biblical quotation, "He shall have dominion from
Canada Day
sea to sea, and from the river unto the ends of the earth". These words were suggested by Sir Leonard Tilley, later governor of New Brunswick and, I have heard on good grounds, in the presence of the Hon. George Brown, the ancestor of the member who has placed this bill before us. "Dominion" has nothing whatever to do with the domination of this country, nor any of the citizens of the Dominion of Canada.
If we should change this wonderful name we would have to put the stone-masons to work around this building obliterating the word "Dominion". The east side of the Peace Tower has the inscription I just quoted, and "dominion from sea to sea" inscribed on one of its sturdy arches. There is evidence of this identification all across the country in cities, towns and municipalities other than the capital. The Privy Council chamber in the east block houses a tremendous mural map on the south wall entitled, "The Dominion of Canada, 1886". What a tradition this name "Dominion of Canada" bears! Every Canadian, as had the Fathers of Confederation, has great spiritual resources available to him. Our patriotism emanates from and has its source not only in ourselves and our relationships with our fellow citizens but also in the majesty of nature and the physical grandeur and beauty of our great dominion from the misty Grand Banks of Newfoundland to the Rocky Mountains and Vancouver and Queen Charlotte Islands.
The whole problem involved in this debate arises from a semantic misunderstanding on the part of the mover and those who have presented amendments to the bill. To prove this point I should like to bring to the attention of hon. members an editorial from the Kingston Whig Standard of Friday, May 1, 1970. It is entitled, "A Dominion it is". The article states in part.
Canada will gain nothing but derision from those -both at home and abroad-who happen to know her history, if this change in the name of our most significant national holiday is made. It won't bring the country down in ruins. But it will destroy a proud and resounding national designation-"The Dominion of Canada"-and it will also prove Canadians to be the most callow of adolescents when it comes to appreciating their own heritage.
It is quite a lengthy editorial, Mr. Speaker, and that is all I shall quote for the record. I submit that those who would like to see Bill C-29 pass do not appreciate or understand their own heritage.
I shall close by placing on the record "A Song of Canada". This is a poem written

May 12, 1970
Canada Day
by one of our now deceased Canadian citizens, that great Scottish-Canadian poet Robert Reid. Many members may remember this poem from their schooldays. I am proud to place it on the record because it best describes the love we should bear for our country, its sublime beauty, principles and origins. Written in 1910, the poem is as follows:
Sing me a song of the great Dominion!
Soul-felt words for a patriot's ear!
Ring out boldly the well-turned measure.
Voicing your notes that the world may hear;
Here is no starveling-Heaven forsaken- Shrinking aside where the Nations throng;
Proud as the proudest moves she among them- Worthy is she of a noble song!
Sing me the might of her giant mountains,
Baring their brows in the dazzling blue;
Changeless alone, where all else changes,
Emblems of all that is grand and true;
Free as the eagles around them soaring;
Fair as they rose from their Maker's hand;
Shout, till the snow-caps catch the chorus-
The white-topp'd peaks of our mountain land!
Sing me the calm of her tranquil forests,
Silence eternal, and peace profound,
Into whose great heart's deep recesses Breaks no tempest, and comes no sound;
Face to face with the death-like stillness,
Here, if at all, man's soul might quail:
Nay! 'tis the love of that great peace leads us Thither, where solace will never fail!
Sing me the pride of her stately rivers,
Cleaving their way to the far-off sea;
Glory of strength in their deep-mouth'd music- Glory of mirth in their tameless glee.
Hark! 'tis the roar of the tumbling rapids;
Deep unto deep through the dead night calls; Truly, I hear but the voice of Freedom Shouting her name from her fortress walls!
Sing me the joy of her fertile prairies.
League upon league of the golden grain:
Comfort, housed in the smiling homestead

Plenty, throned on the lumbering wain.
Land of contentment! May no strife vex you, Never war's flag on your plains unfurl'd;
Only the blessings of mankind reach you- Finding the food for a hungry world!
Sing me the charm of her blazing camp-fires; Sing me the quiet of her happy homes,
Whether afar 'neath the forest arches Or in the shade of the city's domes;
Sing me her life, her loves, her labors:
All of a mother a son would hear;
For when a lov'd one's praise is sounding Sweet are the strains to the lover's ear...
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
Sing me the song, then; sing it bravely:
Put your soul in the words you sing;
Sing me the praise of this-
-great Dominion-
Clear on the ear let the deep notes ring.
[Mr. Alkenbrack.J
Here is no starveling, Heaven forsaken, Crouching apart where the nations throng;
Proud as the proudest moves she among them; Well is she worthy a noble song!
I am sure all members will agree that a Dominion it is, so a Dominion let it remain.


Mr. D. Gordon Blair (Grenville-Carleion):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that private members' hour has almost concluded and that other hon. members obviously wish to speak, I propose to confine my remarks to a few sentences only.
The name of our country is described in the first operative section of the British North America Act as being "One Dominion under the name of Canada." From the very beginning of this country "Dominion" has been association by law and by tradition with our national holiday. The norm "Dominion" is in the minds of a large number of our fellow citizens associated traditionally, historically and emotionally with "Canada." It is the official name of this country. It therefore seems to me appropriate that it should continue to be the description given to our national holiday.
We Members of Parliament who are dealing with a matter which commands what we call a free vote of this House are forced to realize our extreme power as legislators. We have it within our power today to change the name of our national holiday and, indirectly, to change the title and style of our country. It is my opinion that as legislators we should exercise our power with prudence and with proper respect for the views of our fellow citizens.
I do not know what other hon. nembers have done, but when this proposal was first made in the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs of which I was a member, before the Easter recess I asked that consideration of this question be held over so that all of us would be able to consult our constituents and determine their views. I took every means within my power to ask the people in my constituency what they thought of a proposal to change the name "Dominion Day" to "Canada Day." I received 198 letters, 181 of which were completely opposed to changing the present title of "Dominion Day." Fifteen letters approved "Canada Day," and two constituents suggested the title "Confederation Day."
I think many people would say that when changes are proposed, those who are in opposition are more likely to express themselves
May 12. 1970

Canada Day
than those who are in favour. But I do not think that the result of the canvass which I conducted-which has been fortified by many telephone calls and personal conversations with my constituents-can be ignored. This constituency is in truth one of the oldest parts of Canada. It was to this area that the United Empire Loyalists first came. It is one of the oldest parts of English-speaking Canada, and I contend that the views of the people whom I represent deserve respect and attention. I hope that the House will accord it to them.
I also suggest to all hon. members that we must in this House exercise our great powers with prudence and with proper respect for the views of all our people, as 1 said at the beginning. We have held our country together by being very respectful of the views of minorities, be they linguistic, regional, economic or religious. Throughout our history we have endeavoured to avoid making decisions which are divisive, particularly when they relate to the deeply-held convictions of people in Canada.
At this critical time in our history I would hate our country to be divided by an acrimonious debate about the name of its national holiday. Any change in the name of our national holiday should unite, and not divide us. Since it is clear that this will not happen, I submit to the House that this bill should be rejected and that the name should not be changed.


Mr. MacLean:: Mr. Speaker, I rise briefly on a point of order before the next speaker takes the floor, because there will not be an opportunity later. If Your Honour refers to the record you will see that when this motion was first put, a caveat was entered by the hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster (Mr. Bell). At the end of the day's debate he raised a point of order on the disposition of this bill. It was agreed on that occasion, as a temporary measure, that the bill would hold its position on the Order Paper until this occasion. That is one point of order that I wish to raise.
The other question that I raise-and perhaps it has been resolved in Your Honour's mind-is that I would like to feel this amendment did not constitute a precedent for other amendments, because it seems to me there is some doubt as to whether the amendment is in order because it seems completely to negate the purpose of the bill.


Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to deal with the point of order.
When the bill was discussed last April 24, at the suggestion of the hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster (Mr. Bell) and of the government House Leader, the House passed an order to the effect that the bill retain its place on the order paper. I therefore hope the bill is still at the top of the list when public bills are next studied in the House. In fact, the House might agree to make it an order.
As for the second point raised by the hon. member, the Chair entertained doubts as to whether the proposed amendments which tended to change the bill entirely were in order. But the bill was before the House and that was simply a remark of the Speaker that the situation was not a precedent.
Referring to citation 396 and the ones that follow in Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, fourth edition, I contend the amendments are in order.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a brief word on both points of order raised by the hon. member for Malpeque (Mr. MacLean). Perhaps I might take them in reverse order. With respect-in this case with respect to the hon. member for Malpeque-it seems to me that Mr. Speaker's caveat did not relate so much to the amendment that is before the House as it did to what the committee had done to the bill. As reported at page 6277 of Hansard, Mr. Speaker said:
The question is whether a bill can be so amended in committee that it is not the same bill at all as when it came before the House.
Mr. Speaker did not rule on that point but that, it seems to me, was the basic question he raised. I suggest that under our new rules it is in order at the report stage to seek to restore something that was deleted or changed in the committee. That is quite clear in our rules regarding the report stage. I suggest, therefore, that a change having been made in the committee, about which Mr. Speaker had some doubts, surely it is the right of an hon. member on the floor of the House at the report stage to seek to restore what was there in the first place.
However, the more pressing point of order, because it would seem it might have to be decided before six o'clock, is the first point of

May 12, 1970
Canada Day
order raised by the hon. member for Mal-peque. I would simply point out in one language, as my hon. friend from Missisquoi has in the other, that the issue of Votes and Proceedings for April 24, 1970, contains the following notation at the top of page 715:
By unanimous consent, it was ordered,-That should consideration of Bill C-29, An Act respecting Canada Day not be disposed of at this sitting, the said bill shall stand and retain its precedence.
Now, Mr. Speaker, that does not say retain its precedence "for one day," "for a special occasion" or what have you. It says "shall stand and retain its precedence." I am quite aware of the fact that the ordinary rules regarding business in private members' hour are quite clear, and that under those rules any matter that had been debated for an hour would have to go to the foot of the list. That is spelled out in Standing Order 20(2). But when there is a special order made by the House, it takes precedence over what may be in the rules; and in this case we have a special order.
I would also draw Your Honour's attention to the fact that on pages 92 and 93 of Beau-chesne's fourth edition there are a few paragraphs about the authority of the Journals- Journals, of course, being the name that is applied to Votes and Proceedings. Let me read just a sentence or two. Citation 102(1) says:
The Journals are the official records of the House.
I need not read the rest of the paragraph at this point. Then I come to paragraph 102(2):
The Journals are prepared under the direction of the Clerk, by an officer of experience called the Clerk of Journals.
That is a statement of fact, if ever there was one. I go on:
They are made up from the Clerk's scroll and whenever any question arises as to any proceeding which has taken place, the Journals alone are held to be correct. An entry therein may be amended or expunged on motion made after due notice.
I have read the whole of that paragraph 2, but the gist of it is quite clear, that if there is any doubt, the Journals alone are held to be correct; and I point out that the Journals say it was ordered on April 24, 1970, that this bill "shall stand and retain its precedence." There is no qualification. It does not say precedence for one day or for a special occasion; it says "shall stand and retain its precedence." Therefore, it seems to me that if this order,

dealing with this bill and the amendments before us, is not completed by six o'clock today it should retain its precedence under the authority of the unanimous order of this House passed on April 24.


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make just a few brief remarks with regard to what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has said. I would agree with him if I agreed with his interpretation of the special order, but it so happens that I do not. I think the special order, as it is reported in the Journals, is defective, because this question was raised by the hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster (Mr. Bell), and the government House Leader, the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Macdonald), had this to say as recorded at page 6269 of Hansard:
Mr. Speaker, that is a very legitimate concern on the part of the hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster (Mr. Bell). If this stage of the proceedings has not been disposed of by the end of the hour this afternoon, I suggest the bill should retain its place on the Order Paper so that it may come up first at the next time public bills are called.
I repeat, "at the next time..."
Perhaps if the House is agreeable, that could be made an order-
I repeat, "that could be made an order."
-and hon. members could present their arguments at a later stage in the proceedings.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
I was here at the time, Mr. Speaker, and I am quite certain that the general understanding of the members present was that the order was that the item should retain its precedence for one occasion only.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I thank hon. members for their contribution on the two points of order raised by the hon. member for Mal-peque (Mr. MacLean). Dealing with the second one first, I would not want to go beyond what Mr. Speaker said at that time and I would rather concur in the remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) on that point. But on the first point of order he raised I am a little troubled, for the very reasons that the hon. member for Malpeque has raised. The Hansard which I have in front of me indicates one thing. It would seem to me that there is a possible alternative interpretation of Votes and Proceedings-in other words, an interpretation along the lines suggested by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. But I am not sure which one will bear up under closer examination.
May 12. 1970

Under the circumstances, and in view of what appears to me to be a possible contradiction, I would like to take this matter under advisement. A ruling will be made later, or in the event that there is no statement made immediately, the bill of the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Brown) will retain its precedence for the purpose of a ruling and further contributions at the next time it arises in our proceedings.


Mr. Bell:: Mr. Speaker, I understand that famous words of mine have been quoted. I do not know whether or not we are on a point of order, but for the record I wish to indicate that this was not what I said. I should have corrected it, but I did not think that insignificant words at six o'clock one night would be quoted all over the place. Let me get my bearings for a moment, Mr. Speaker, as I have just come into the chamber from the Transport Committee. What is recorded in Hansard is exactly opposite to what I intended to say, if I can put it that way.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I think that under the circumstances the wisest course of action is to consider carefully the words that are available to us and make a ruling on the matter either later this day or at the next time Public Bills are called.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, if I may catch your eye I would point out that it is six o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member calls it six o'clock. It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until 8 p.m.
At six o'clock the House took recess


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Mcllraith that Bill C-5, for the relief of persons who have been convicted of offences and have subsequently rehabilitated themselves, be read the third time and do pass.
Criminal Records
William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, before five o'clock we were discussing Bill C-5 which provides for the relief of persons who have been convicted of offences and have subsequently rehabilitated themselves. I was mentioning that this bill, not being all it should be, will ultimately bring about a situation such as developed in the House yesterday. Hon. members will remember that some time ago when the amendments to the Criminal Code were being considered, one of the amendments related to abortion.
Everyone who was involved with the legislation, knew that far from being beneficial, the amendment would be restrictive. Before the law was changed, if a doctor wanted to perform an abortion he would, knowing that he was about to undertake something on the edge of legality, make his decision in conjunction with another doctor. Now the law says that there must be a therapeutic abortion committee. But only large hospitals can set up therapeutic abortion committees-so that far from being beneficial, that amendment to the Criminal Code has proved to be restrictive.
What bothers me is that although there was a lot of hullabaloo about the abortion provision, and although many people thought we were taking a forward step in this field, we were not. Quite understandably, many people were frustrated when nothing concrete happened after all that talk. The other day we witnessed a demonstration on behalf of young, pregnant girls who were looking for relief in the law on abortion. Anticipating that legislation passed by this parliament would bring them relief, they were disappointed to find that it would not.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
The young people today are engaging in activities that in many cases are anti-social. They are the kind of activities that bring the young people into conflict with society as we know it. In many cases they will get themselves into great difficulty. Because of the newspaper coverage of this debate, their opinion will be that their offence will not be known: they will think they will be able to get rid of the stigma attached to the offence. They expect to be able to say to a prospective employer, legally and without danger of conflict, "No, I have not been convicted of a criminal offence''. That will not be true. Even if they receive a pardon, the people in their community will still know about the original offence. They will be aware that this person

May 12, 1970
Criminal Records
is now asking for a piece of paper which states in fact that the offence did not occur.
When the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, the hon. member for Welland (Mr. Tolmie), initially-brought this matter before Parliament, hon. members will recall that a member of this House had in his youth been convicted of a criminal offence. There was an attempted blackmail. The hon. member stated that in fact he had been convicted and the blackmail attempt was unsuccessful. When the hon. member drafted his private member's bill asking for the expunging of records, that is exactly what he meant. That is what should happen.
Most members of the committee could quite easily be appointed to the Supreme Court. It is certainly a lawyers' club that is operating in that committee. They operate at a very high legal level, not at the level of the average person. They deal in legalities, technicalities, precedents and all the hocus-pocus that belongs in the Supreme Court.


Mr. Otto:: And justice.


William Arnold Peters: And justice. There is no argument about that. However, it is confusing. People practising law are honourable: they are doing an excellent job. Appearing before that committee are representatives of the police and the parole board. These people have a selfish and involved interest. This high-paid help advises the committee how to operate so that society will be protected.
There is nothing in this bill that could not have been done previously. If I am wrong, I ask the minister to tell me. To the best of my knowledge, a person could always petition for pardon of a conviction: it is not necessary to wait five years. It is possible to petition to the Queen for a pardon. Although the pardon is not always granted, there is the right to apply. All this bill does is state that a person can apply in a certain way and the machinery will be set up to make the pardon possible. An investigation is made to see whether the person has been living a good, clean life for the past five years, and if so the pardon will be granted.
Thousands of people in this country are waiting for this kind of legislation. They believe that Parliament has decided that if a person behaves himself for a reasonable period of time his criminal record will be expunged. If we were honest we would state in this bill that no employer has the right to
[Mr. Peters.l
ask any employee if he has a criminal record or if he is a Jew or a Protestant. In most areas this question cannot be asked. We are promising those who have a criminal record that their good name can be restored by being granted a pardon. That is not what the public wants. It is not what we promised them. It is certainly not what the hon. member had in mind when he introduced this question several years ago in a private member's bill.
Hon. members should carefully consider the legal arguments being presented. I think most members will agree that a criminal record should automatically be eliminated after a certain period of time. I have used the example of a driver's licence. A person is permitted so many points. If he loses those points, after a certain period of time they are automatically given back to him. He does not have to apply for them. Surely the Department of Justice could review convictions in a similar manner. If a person is convicted in his youth of attempted armed robbery, stealing an automobile, joy-riding or a misdemeanour under the Highway Traffic Act, that information would be listed with the Department of Justice. It would be available to the provincial police, the federal police and very likely Interpol. It would be well known in the community where the conviction was registered. There would be no problem in automatically eliminating records where there had been no conviction in the previous five years. I think this would be fair. When a person serves a sentence and has met the requirements of the law, the penalty should not continue forever. It is our responsibility to expunge the criminal record. It should not be the responsibility of the individual to ask to have his record cleared, because it will not happen; the police will not forfeit the record. A prospective employer should not ask for information concerning a conviction more than five years old. The record should no longer exist. When applying for a job, a person should not be asked about a criminal record any more than he should be asked about his religion or nationality. It is of no interest, and should not bar him from obtaining employment.
I received recently a letter from someone who was convicted when he was young. He wanted to know whether he could obtain a passport. I was surprised to learn that the government did not care about his previous conviction. That question is not asked when applying for a passport. I understand the question is not asked when applying for a
May 12, 1970

visa. If there is some reason for bonding a person, special arrangements could be made. Information should be available. Indeed, information is available now. Every one of these bonding companies telephones the RCMP-and they can get more information on you than you know yourself.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
Let's not kid ourselves: it is not difficult to get your name in the RCMP files or to get into their bad graces. I did it because of my labour background, and on a number of occasions I was lucky I did not qualify for a criminal record: this was probably due to the persuasive powers of my hon. friend from York South (Mr. Lewis) who defended me in criminal cases arising out of my labour background. This has been to my advantage, but I know of many people who really did not have to do very much before they got criminal records. Surely Members of Parliament are not interested in getting the parole board into business in a new field? Surely the idea is that a person should be able to get rid of a criminal record after five years if he has been able to keep out of difficulty and if he has shown that he is not anti-social. I believe this is what hon. members want. But they are not getting it in the legislation before us.
If I were a young man living in Alberta who had decided to come here to look for a job, I would certainly not apply for a pardon after living in Ontario for five years or so. I would not do so because everyone in Ontario with whom I was connected in any shape or form would be asked whether in their opinion I was a good risk to obtain a pardon. If hon. members want to set up another farce as we did in connection with the abortion legislation, telling people we were liberalizing the law when in fact we were doing the opposite, we should go ahead with this bill.
I recall the case of a farmer who was incensed about a criminal conviction which had been registered against him. He complained about it. In fact, he got so badly into the hair of the Minister of Justice, the Attorney General and the Prime Minister of that day that they offered him a pardon. He did not ask for one; they offered it to him. His reply was, "No dice. All I want is to be cleared." He didn't want a pardon. In the same way, all these other people will not want a pardon. They will want their records expunged.
Mr. Speaker, young people today are seeing society in a way far different from our day. They are doing things they do not believe to 22375-18J
Criminal Records
be wrong. They are smoking marijuana, engaging in protests and doing many things which lead to difficulties. I expect that in five years they will grow up and have the same outlook as you and I. If youth were not impetuous I would be very scared for youth. But thousands and thousands of our young people will have records which they will carry with them for the rest of their lives. Society should think enough of them to ensure that if they meet the terms of society, in five years the record will be removed. I do not know what is wrong with Members of Parliament, but I hope we will decide that the criminal record should be expunged and that those concerned will not be asked to apply for pardons which would carry all the stigma of the original convictions.
I do not expect this will happen. Supporters of the government will vote for this measure and it will be passed in its present form. But it will not satisfy young people today. It will not satisfy those who have made an effort to meet the terms of society and now expect that their records will be expunged. We shall be looking to the Senate to have second, sober thoughts, and I hope the Senate will decide in its wisdom that the wish of the hon. member for Welland (Mr. Tolmie), who originally urged that after five years the record should be expunged, will be met.
I am only making this speech because I have heard hon. members say they did not understand how this measure would work. They said the same with regard to the abortion law-"We did not know it would be more restrictive. We thought we were advancing the situation." Well, we did not advance it in that case and we are not advancing the cause of reform today. Playing with the problem will not solve it, so I suggest it will be better to leave the present legislation where it is.
I believe the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) is right when he says we shall not be able to open the Criminal Code-in connection with abortion, for example-for another five years. We cannot open up legislation to deal with mistakes which Parliament made the year before. The time to deal with the defects of this bill is now, if we want to do so-not after third reading has been given.


Steven Otto: Mr. Speaker, it has seemed to me for some time that we are stumbling along the rocky road to a just society. Our hearts are pure, our intentions are good. The minister, who has been a friend

May 12, 1870
Criminal Records
of mine for many years, is fully aware of the problems inherent in a bill of this kind. He is aware of the difficulty which attaches to persuading Canadian society as a whole to accept such changes as quickly as the government would like to introduce them.
When I read this bill I am reminded of the story which most members here have read. It was 20 years ago that I read "Les Miserables" by Victor Hugo. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that having been exonerated after serving in the galleys, Jean Valjean received a yellow passport, or paper, on which it was stated:
Jean Valjean, a liberated convict, having been convicted for buglary (five years) and attempted escape (14 years) and having served 19 years is hereby freed.
You will recall that he went from one end of France to the other, and every time he showed that paper it proved to be his death-knell. Why? Because this is the nature of the beast; this is the nature of human beings. The intention is good, but intentions sometimes pave the road to heartbreak.


William Arnold Peters: The road to hell.


Steven Otto: What shall we do? We recognize that vengeance is not the purpose of society. We are not the first to do so. Two thousand years ago an attempt was made to recognize this evil in mankind, this desire of men to improve their position at the expense of others. Now we have reached a stage at which we are civilized enough not to wish to punish a man over and over again, not to incarcerate him repeatedly, if not behind bars then by our actions. We seem to overlook, when we introduce law reform, that we are human beings, not a band of angels. Human beings, unlike other animals, love to be cruel, to some extent, and they are aggressive and vengeful. No other creature on earth is as vengeful as man. That is a matter of practicality.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
Now, let us suppose that this bill is passed. Let us also suppose that a man applies for a pardon, though I gather from the hon. member v/ho has just spoken that very few men will apply because by applying you bring more old skeletons out of the closet than if you do not apply. When a pardon is granted, what will be the situation? Mankind is curious, and gossip will condemn the man whether or not he has had a pardon. The minute his employer hears that the man had a conviction, pardon or no he will be leery of

him. Again, that is a practical matter. His neighbours will talk the minute they know; his family will suffer and he will have to
move.
It has also been questioned whether people with pardons will be able to get bonds. Under this legislation a bonding company will not give such a man a bond, because the financiers will say to themselves, "Why should we trust this man with our money? We know that some convicts have exonerated themselves and have led a useful life, but some revert to crime, so why should we take a chance?" For all practical purposes, the intent of the bill is spelled out in clause 5 in wonderful language. It reads:
The grant of a pardon
(a) is evidence of the fact that the Board, after making proper inquiries, was satisfied that an applicant was of good behaviour and that the conviction in respect of which the pardon is granted should no longer reflect adversely on his character-
Very noble language! I cannot see how the minister can go further than he has in the bill, because I doubt whether the public would accept any further reforms of the sort suggested by the hon. member opposite. I have the feeling that even this legislation will meet resistance, although I know that the minister himself would have liked to go further. Many times I have heard him express the same apprehensions that have been expressed by others in the House.
To think that society would accept a stronger measure than this is to dream, instead of to face reality. Let us suppose that all the suggestions made by the hon. member opposite had been incorporated in the bill. If a record were expunged, does he not think for one moment that clever entrepreneurs would seek out such record? For a certain fee, employers could be given the exact particulars of any record. I would ask the hon. member what he would do about that. Would the hon. gentleman suggest that the newspapers should not be allowed to print the details of trials, convictions and the names of those concerned? Or would he consider this a restriction on the freedom of the press? If he does, then it does not matter what this bill provides. As long as newspaper records are available, people can go down to the newspaper morgue and obtain these particulars. So what would the hon. member's great suggestion accomplish?


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question?
May 12, 1970


Mr.   Olio@: Mr. Speaker, since I am speeding along here, I should like to continue. I promised the minister that I would not take more than five minutes, and I intend to keep my promise. I should like to make a suggestion. Clause 6 (2) of the bill provides:
-no such record shall be disclosed to any person, nor shall the existence of the record or the fact of the conviction be disclosed to any person-
I suggest that if there were added to that the words "or by any person" we would achieve the practical solution. In other words, if we made it illegal for one person to disclose to another the criminal record of a person who had been granted a pardon, the result would be a practical one: the newspapers would go through their morgue and blot out the names so that no one would be identified. I would also suggest the further provision that anyone who disclosed the past criminal conviction of a person who had obtained a pardon would be liable for damages. I see no reason why that could not be done. Certainly I think my suggestions would accomplish a great deal more than the suggestions made by the hon. member opposite.
There is nothing in business that entrepreneurs dislike more than the possibility of having to pay money in the form of damages. You cannot very well decree that newspapers do not cover trials and publish names, although in today's context I do not see why it is necessary to publish culprits' names. Nevertheless, I do not think the freedom of the press would be restricted to any great extent if the press were not allowed to publish names. Does it really have to be publicized that it was Tom Jones or Jack Smith who was convicted of burglary? In former times, when citizens had no other protection, this might have been important, but not today. But as long as the law is as it is, we should make sure that if a person tells another person that a third party has been convicted, and as a result that third party suffers damage, such person should be liable for damages. That is the only way to put a stop to this practice.


Mr. Boulanger:: But what if it is a commission of inquiry?


Steven Otto: In that case the commissioner would be in the same circumstances as an individual. In conclusion, the contents of the bill have been discussed for a long time. As I say, the minister himself has expressed reservations as to whether the bill will work. Nevertheless, under this legislation a person
Criminal Records
who has been convicted, served his time and then given a pardon and become a good citizen will derive some benefit from this legislation, although not nearly as much as we would have hoped because I suggest it would be almost impossible to bring forward legislation to compensate him for an injury caused, not by the fact of his conviction or his record but by the news media which keep their own records. I say that the hon. member's suggestion in this regard would make not one iota of difference.
I will, of course, vote for the bill because I think it is a start in the right direction. Through this legislation we are showing people who wish to lead a productive and peaceful life that we are no longer vindictive about any error that he has made in the past. To that extent this legislation is all to the good.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, I was not a member of the committee that considered this bill. However, I do have the personal experience of a constituent on this topic. I have listened to some of the arguments expressed tonight and feel I should add this personal experience to our deliberations. I have no desire to get in the minister's hair on this subject, if that were in any way possible. But I have a strong feeling about a person who has been convicted of a crime, who has served his time and paid his debt to society through his period of incarceration. As the hon. member across the way has said, I do not think there is any point in perpetuating vengeance or punishment. But what happens in fact is exactly that-a person who has made one slip or false move, perhaps very early in life, is forced to carry the stigma for the rest of his life no matter how he has since conducted himself.
My personal experience has relation to a person convicted of extortion some 35 years ago. This example relates to the minister's department. The person concerned applied for a job associated with the Department of Justice. When asked whether he had a criminal record, he said he had not. The truth is that he lied. This man, in his late sixties, was forced to lie because he had only Hobson's choice: he had the choice of lying and not getting the job, or of telling the truth and not getting the job.
A person who has a criminal record carries it to his grave. Of course, under this legislation there could be a pardon if the person

May 12, 1970
Criminal Records
should apply for a pardon. However, I do not think that a person who has for 35 years lived as a good citizen should have to go through the routine of applying for a pardon. Also, I do not believe it is fair to hold out the hope to individuals with criminal records that their records will be expunged when this is not really the case. The record is there, and will remain there. But this bill says, "We will forgive you".
The criminal record of a person is forced to still remain. I believe that on third reading of a bill such as this there is a kind of hope that criminal records will be forgotten. But I wonder if that actually will be the case. I suppose there are people who have greater hopes than me that legislation of the type we have before us will solve the problem. I do not believe it will. I think the same kind of sinister name and record which a person with a conviction has will remain with him regardless of this legislation. Therefore, in a sense we are holding out hope of a type that really does not exist.
I add my voice to that of people who feel that once a person has served his sentence and has lived up to the expectations of the community, his case automatically should come up for review by the Department of Justice or the Department of the Solicitor General, and automatically his offence against society-for which he has paid dearly- should be expunged.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, this bill is an important part of the attempt to improve the whole corrections program of this country. It is an integral part of the total program and should be viewed as such. I thank hon. members who worked on the committee for what they have accomplished, in spite of the reference that has been made in the debate tonight to the profession of some of them. The fact is that as a working committee the members of the committee did a job which I think is a credit to them and to Parliament in assembling this legislation.


William Arnold Peters: A credit to the Bar.


George James McIlraith: This particular facet of the corrections program is an attempt, as part of the major changes being made, to provide a practical measure that will assist those persons who have been convicted of having committed a crime and have since rehabilitated themselves. This measure should help them avoid having to suffer the unjust conse-

quences of having been convicted. It is, as I said, part of a larger program that we have been carrying out within the past year. We have sharply increased the size of the National Parole Board. We have increased its scope of work by sending panels of the board into our penal institutions to interview the prisoners there.
We have been able to obtain information from the inmates concerning the desirability of applying for parole. This was not true as recently as two years ago. We have sought to make sharp changes in retraining programs in the institutions. This is a difficult task, but as hon. nembers will appreciate substantial changes have been made in the physical characteristics of the buildings. The number of institutions has increased from 9 to 34 in the last 8 years, while there has not been a very large increase in the number of inmates. There has also been a change in the training program. Perhaps I could pick out an example to illustrate the point I wish to make. Instead of following what had been the practice for many years, that of giving some trade training in certain areas-some of which, I regret to say, has fallen into disuse-we have made changes in an effort to provide training in those areas that would lead to employment on release.
This change can best be illustrated by the rather well-publicized program of having firms engaged in a certain field provide training. This has been done in respect of computer programming. There has been work in that new field of activity. It is interesting to note that the small group in the first graduating class all had jobs available before they were released. I have picked out that one program merely for purposes of illustration. There are others. We are trying to develop and press this program forward rapidly, because it is quite clear to anyone who studies the whole situation carefully that just as 10 years ago the thrust properly was put on changing and improving the accommodation, if you like to call it that, for inmates, the thrust in the next 10 years has moved away from that aspect into the treatment and rehabilitation of the individual person who is unfortunate enough to be an inmate. We have also made other changes which I could mention in providing for supervision during the period of statutory remission of persons released before the expiry of the full term for which they were sentenced during the statutory periods.
May 12, 1970

[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
With reference to this particular measure, it is quite clear that there have been unfair and unjust consequences persisting throughout the lives of men who have been convicted of an offence which they had committed earlier in their lives. In an effort to remove the unjust situation attaching to these individuals we have attempted to do what we can. One of the things we have been doing is to have more and more of the community groups working with the parole board or penitentiary service, as the case may be, in addition to the work we do for the inmates directly and immediately. We have been getting a better receptivity in the minds of the community at large because in the final analysis the acceptance of that concept will correct all these unjust situations, not legislation by itself.
We also started in anticipation, because the processes are lengthy, to try to use the existing legislation for pardons more extensively than we have. While that did not affect many persons, it did provide an opportunity to acquire much experience in the method of removing the consequences of convictions on persons who have been rehabilitated. Certain things were found out about that. We then studied the private member's bill, to which I think all members of the House acknowledge a debt of gratitude because it brought forward this subject a few years ago in another Parliament.


William Arnold Peters: Yes, in a clear, concise way.


George James McIlraith: The hon. member says "in a clear, concise way". In any event, a great deal of time was spent on that bill and it was discovered pretty early in its study that it is physically impossible to expunge a record; that that is just an abuse of language and that there is no way of doing it. Records exist in many forms and it is a matter of getting them removed from where they can do any unjust damage, and getting them contained. Regrettably, that approach to legislation on this subject had to be dropped. But it was dropped only after careful examination and without any lessening of appreciation for what the proponents were trying to do through that legislation, and indeed with an enhanced appreciation of what they were trying to do. I think great credit is due to those who put it forward-


William Arnold Peters: In ten years' time we will pass that legislation.
Criminal Records


George James McIlraith: -for the method of dealing with the subject. We came to the conclusion that the best approach was to provide a document that would indicate to the community at large and to the prospective employers, where the matter arose, that these people had rehabilitated themselves. It became rather clear, to the extent to which we can get information on the subject, that persons who had criminal records desired this distinction themselves, although there is no proof for that statement in any statistical way because, as hon. members will know, it is difficult to obtain precise information on it. But it is clear in the minds of most who have worked in this field that it is desirable to draw a distinction between those persons who had earlier convictions and who have regrettably continued their criminal activities-and regrettably there are some such persons-and those who have succeeded in rehabilitating themselves.
So the concept is to grant pardon, and when pardon has been granted to get all the records and have them sealed where they cannot be obtained by anyone except in the limited circumstances set out in the bill, with all the precautions, because occasionally there can conceivably be circumstances where it might be desirable in the interest of the state and society at large to obtain them again. I hope and expect that there will be very few such instances, but we will have to wait before knowing it as a fact.
There is no legislation on this subject on which we can base ourselves. It is a matter of going forward into a new field. We believe this will work. Our experience with granting pardons so far has indicated, together with other changes in the correctional program, that it should and will work. I anticipate a large number of applications for pardon. I know no case where a pardon has been granted and where employment has been refused to a person given that pardon.
I know of the tremendous change in attitude on this whole subject that has taken place among employers, mainly in the corporation field. As an illustration of the change in society at large, I think it is interesting to note that the Canadian Chamber of Commerce now has a Committee on Correction headed by the president of one of the largest companies in this country. With all due respect to that Chamber, this would not have been thought possible by members of that body 10 or 20 years ago. It represents a tremendous change and acceptance on the part of that sector of society which provides a large number of employers, and of men with

May 12, 1970
Criminal Records
a new concept, and is a significant change worthy of note and commendation here.
The bill has other technical details upon which I do not need to elaborate. But I want to emphasize that there is every reason to expect that this bill will be of tremendous help to a large number of persons who have had convictions and who have long since reentered society in a normal way and rehabilitated themselves fully, but still suffer the consequences of an earlier conviction. It is the best possible method we could devise to meet the problem in a way consistent with protecting society from a few who continue in the field of criminal activity.
This bill, in spite of the somewhat cynical approach of the hon. member for Timiskam-ing (Mr. Peters) will, in the light of experience so far due to the sharply increased use of pardons in the last year, do much to assist the people who are now being unjustly dealt with by society.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
When the bill was discussed at the second reading stage I said it was a new measure, that I hoped it would be examined and watched by the House and that 1 expected it would require amendment within three years or so. At least I hoped that would be the case. We now have machinery within the parole board to handle a large number of applications. I hope and expect that a large number will be received. There is every indication of this, and I am reasonably optimistic about the success of the bill. I believe it is a good measure in a field that needed attention, and for that reason it is quite important.
I want to express my appreciation for what hon. members have said on this subject, both at the earlier stages of the debate and at the present stage. I wish especially to acknowledge the work of the members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs who examined the bill. They performed their duty extremely well and were a credit to this House.


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, would the minister permit a question?


George James McIlraith: Yes.


Mark Willson Rose: In view of the fact that by serving his sentence an inmate has paid his debt to society, what is the rationale behind this bill which insists that the inmate must himself make application for pardon? Why is it not considered to be automatic after a certain lapse of time?
[Mr. McHraith.l


George James McIlraith: I am very glad to answer that question. In the first place, the hon. member's reference to a sentence being a debt to society is not apt and is not accurate, although it is very often used in describing sentences. But leaving that point aside, the simple reason it is not made automatic is that there are something like 124,000 convictions a year in Canada, not 124,000 persons sentenced but 124,000 convictions. People in this country move about the country a great deal, and there is no known physical way in which pardons in these cases could be treated on an automatic basis.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



EXCISE ACT


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Minister of National Revenue) moved: that Bill C-209, an act to amend the Excise Act, be read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the amendments to the Excise Act contained in this bill are meant to facilitate, generally speaking, the administrative tasks of the department while ensuring that the provisions of the act are consistent with the ever changing technological conditions.
Several parts of the present act are carried over from the Internal Revenue Act and do not correspond anymore to the operations undertaken by licenced industries, where the use of storage and recovery systems based on data processing, automation and other electronic devices is an everyday reality.
Besides, the changes improve the wording of some clauses to make it agree with that of the Food and Drugs Act and Trade Marks Act.
The changes are in no way controversial and they will enable the department to show more administrative flexibility and reduce the cost of the supervision of industries regulated under this act, that is distilleries, breweries, tobacco and cigar manufacturers as well as other industries who use ethyl alcool in the manufacturing of their products such as perfume and vinegar.

You will notice that clause 30 of the bill will provide for the ex-warehousing of vodka
May 12, 1970

spirits by distillers, without age. The regulations which are made pursuant to the Food and Drugs Act and which provide identity standards for alcoholic beverages, permit the sale of vodka to consumers, without age; but under the Excise Act, section 149(3), domestic vodka is in the category of spirits which must be warehoused for at least two years before release from a distillery. Consequently, imported vodka is accorded an advantage over domestic vodka. It has been found that storage of vodka in metal tanks has no aging or maturing effect and that cost for inventory and storage facilities are unnecessarily paid for by the consumer. The purpose of the amendment to this subsection of the act is to remove the anomaly that exists between the two pieces of legislation, the Excise Act vis-a-vis the Food and Drugs Act.

Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General, in its reports tabled in the House of Commons for the years 1967, 1968 and 1969, has stated that the department does not correctly apply the provisions of section 137(1). However, the department feels that it does.
This subsection of the act provides five alternative bases upon which duty on spirits shall he charged and computed and also provides for specific deductions or allowances for losses due to evaporation while the spirits were maturing in storage. The subsection has been amended to improve its wording and to facilitate its interpretation and more especially to remove the specific allowances and the 15-years maximum period of storage.
Competition on international markets requires that alcohol be stored for more than 15 years. The elimination of the 15-year limit will permit Canadian distillers to meet the competition of foreign distillers who sell spirits that have been stored for more than 15 years. The amendments to this subsection will make its enforcement more flexible and will reduce the high cost of supervision, in view of the fact that excise officers must, under present legislation, determine at each stage if shortages exceed definite allowances.

You will notice, Mr. Speaker, that most of the changes proposed by the bill are of a very technical nature, and many definitions might look very awkward to people who are not dealing with this kind of business. However, once the bill is referred to the committee we shall have all the necessary people there to
Excise Act
give the technical explanations. I hope that the bill receives the support of the House at this stage so that it may be examined more fully in committee.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of procedure to make a suggestion. I should like to point out that at the present time five committees are sitting, namely, Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts, Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, Fisheries and Forestry, National Resources and Public Works, and Transport and Communications, each with 20 members. This means that a total of 100 members of this chamber are at the moment sitting on committees. The membership of those committees would certainly include the spokesman for this party and the spokesman for the NDP on this matter.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is correct.


Mr. Fortin:: Not for us.


John Angus MacLean: I would make the suggestion, Mr. Speaker, that the places reserved for these two members be reserved until the next time the debate comes up and that any other hon. members who wish to speak at this time do so, but that if the debate is concluded before ten o'clock that we then call it ten o'clock and proceed to the adjournment debate. I believe there are three items on that debate. I make this suggestion, if it is agreeable to the government House leader and the other parties.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to support what the hon. member for Malpeque (Mr. MacLean) has said. There has been a little consultation at this end of the chamber and perhaps I might modify the suggestion. Our lead-off speaker on this matter is also a member of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, but I understand that the hon. member from Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) is prepared to make the initial speech for his party. I should like to suggest that if he wishes to do so, we should permit the hon. member for Lotbiniere to make his speech, but that at that point we call it ten o'clock and let this matter stand over to another occasion. Perhaps we could take the "late show" at that point.
Excise Act

May 12, 1970


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: Mr. Speaker, I have no objection. Perhaps, if the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) could have the floor immediately, the two other parties could recall their spokesmen now sitting on committees so that they could express their views. The purpose of the amendment is to facilitate administrative work and the bill could perhaps be passed before ten o'clock tonight. I think that it would be easier to give further details in committee than in the House.


Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Progressive Conservative party, I must from time to time deal with the estimates of the Department of National Revenue. Obviously, I have not made a detailed study of the minister's proposals nor of the amendments he intends to bring to Bill C-209. But as the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Cote) said, his amendments are so technical that it is difficult for us, common mortals, to make suggestions without consulting technicians ourselves.
At first glance, the bill seems acceptable to me. I cannot, obviously, study it in depth at this stage. The Progressive Conservatives see no objection to having it deferred to the committee provided the minister then summons the required experts to explain the technicalities of the bill to us. We may have occasion to express views that are contrary to those of the experts.
We therefore have no objection to the bill being sent to the committee as soon as possible. It might save time. Even if we were to adjourn the debate to study the technical aspects of the amendments proposed by the minister, we would only be extending the debate. In short, let the bill be deferred to the committee, where representations can be made with a view to improving it, if needs be. In addition, suggestions can also be made to the Minister of National Revenue.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Does the House agree that the bill be referred to committee, or if the other representatives of the parties return before the end of this sitting, that we will hear those members?


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, I believe there was a tentative understanding between the House leaders. The government House leader is not here at the present time, but I believe the suggestion would be acceptable that the debate continue with whatever members are

still here and are available and then it would be adjourned, as a matter of courtesy, so that the two spokesmen I have mentioned would have an opportunity to speak.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Is it
agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on Bill C-209, introduced by the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Cote).
I am happy to say at the outset-and pleased to point it out-that this is a good bill, although it is rather technical. It has some merits and anyone who has gone to the trouble of analyzing it and comparing it with the existing legislation feels that the minister is to be congratulated. I am doing it with all the more pleasure since I have always considered the Minister of National Revenue as a gifted man. He is more a statesman to me than a man given to small politics and I wish to pay him that tribute.
That being said, I come to the subject before us. I do not intend to use all the time I could be allowed but I should like to point out to the minister one particular point and I believe that the minister will agree with me on that.
Mr. Speaker, the object of this bill is to give more flexibility to the administration. Considering the existing Excise Act, one realizes-and I shall use here an old Quebec expression-"that a cow would not be able to find its calf there". That act is extremely complicated and outmoded and does not meet modern administrative needs, all the more so since we have to do here with a department that must resort to advanced technical methods.
The first purpose of the bill is to provide for a greater flexibility in the administration and this will certainly be achieved. As for the second purpose, it aims at reducing the costs of enforcing the law.
At the moment, there are almost as many inspectors in the department as there are taxpayers. The huge number of inspectors breeds complications and the administrative costs are extremely high.
By pruning a number of sections, and notably section 37, we shall help to reduce the cost of administering the law.
May 12, 1970

It is my duty to emphasize the importance of the general purposes of this bill which are to bring about administrative flexibility and to reduce administrative costs.
I find it very difficult, however, Mr. Speaker, to understand exactly what the minister has in mind when he talks about greater competition between Canadian and imported products.
Even if I did agree with the reasons for such a policy, it still appears as if the minister were encouraging a greater consumption of spirits in Canada.
e (9:20 p.m.)
I do not exactly know to what extent the changes provided in Bill C-209 will bring about greater spirits consumption in Canada, but I know-and I now see the minister smiling-that it will mean more revenue for Canada.
I avail myself of this opportunity to remind him that we are now discussing a very important piece of legislation whose implications are quite serious. I should like also to remind him of an extremely eloquent speech that he made at Victoriaville on November 8, 1969, on the opening of the 1969 National Temperance Week. He then said, and I quote:
Research conducted by Messrs. Moreau and Jorge of the Alcoholism and Drug Research Foundation shows that the sales of beer, wine and spirits in 1967 amounted to $1,346,442,000. Now, the statistics compiled by the staff of my department indicate that such sales in 1968 increased by $130,000,000.
It is estimated that in 1967 every Canadian citizen aged 15 and over spent on average $97.70 to buy beer, wine and spirits and generally consumed 1.8 gallons of straight alcohol.
Further on, the minister added:
The fact that every Canadian citizen aged 15 and over spends on average nearly $100 per annum to buy beer, wine and spirits makes me think, while I know that in some African and Asiatic countries, the average yearly income per capita ranges between $60 and $100.
Mr. Speaker, this is to some extent the particular point on which I wanted to draw the attention of the minister. It goes without saying that he is not directly responsible for that. He has to look after taxes which he collects in order to supply the government with the money required for its administration.
He has also to implement the Excise Act. Bill C-209 tends to put order in the administration, to reduce costs and to make the act more flexible in order to provide revenue for the government.
Excise Act
Because I know the minister well and because I am aware of his interest in the fight against alcoholism in Canada, I think that he is perhaps the cabinet nember who knows most about spirits consumption in Canada and that he is in a position, on account of his deep-felt humanitarianism, to compare the demand for and consumption of spirits in Canada with those in other countries. He also knows the big returns Canada gets from that industry. It is a pity, however, that alcoholism should cause such hardships in Canada. I take the opportunity of this debate to urge the minister to say, in his closing remarks, whether or not he is prepared to advise at least the cabinet to assign part of the $1,346 million which the government draws from the sales of spirits for the promotion, not of alcoholism, but of temperance.
Mr. Speaker, although my remarks are not related to the bill under study, I feel it is important to conclude by calling the minister's attention to this problem. Since the government derives revenues of over $1.5 billion from that source, I feel it to be the duty of every member of the House, whether he belongs to the opposition or to the government party, to urge the minister to devote a part of those funds to inform people on temperance and on the ill effects of consuming spirits.
By this amendment, the minister will have performed a good service to the government in collecting the taxes, putting the Department of National Revenue's house in order but unfortunately he will not only have collected money from taxpayers but also have taught them to use spirits.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, 1 venture to address a friendly joke to the minister: if he is as eloquent, in closing the present debate, as he was at Victoriaville when he inaugurated Temperance Week, I feel sure anti-alcoholic movements would obtain the subsidies they so badly need to promote knowledge about the evils of alcoholism.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, there have been prior discussions among the parties with respect to this debate. In view of the sittings of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, which conflicts with the present sittings of the House, and in view of the fact that a number of hon. gentlemen

May 12, 1970
Business of the House who wish to participate in the debate are in that committee, it is my proposal that this debate be now adjourned and that it be called again as the first item of business the day after tomorrow, that being next Thursday. If it is agreed, the debate could be adjourned, after which we might call it ten o'clock. I therefore move, seconded by the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Gray):
That this debate be now adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, since nothing remains except the adjournment debate, perhaps the government House Leader would care to tell us what business the government proposes to bring before the House for the remainder of this week and for the days ahead.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow the government business will be as follows: first we shall consider Government Order No. 95, Bill C-12 with respect to the Yukon and Northwest Territories amendments. This will be followed by Government Order No. 49, Bill S-5 respecting the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act, to be followed by Government Order No. 84, dealing with Bill C-197 with respect to the National Farm Products Marketing Council. On Thursday, as indicated, the business which has been before us will be called as the first item. The business to follow will be a matter for discussion. Friday of this week is to be an allotted day, as I understand, under the auspices of the official opposition.


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, may I take this opportunity of thanking the government House Leader and other House Leaders for their co-operation in this matter. It is especially appreciated because members of this party have an additional commitment this evening which is in conflict with other commitments, that is, a reception to honour one of our former distinguished members.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: For my colleague for Malpeque (Mr. MacLean) it is always a pleasure.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Is it
agreed that we call it ten o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, on April 27 I asked the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) whether the government, in view of the announcement by Canadian Pacific Railway that 10 per cent of its clerical staff, amounting to between 500 and 800 workers could be laid off, was giving urgent consideration to bringing forward legislation based on the Freedman commission report. I was surprised that the Minister of Labour, who has spoken so often and so eloquently about his sympathy and support for the objectives of ordinary working people, answered as he did.
His answer was a complete rejection of my suggestion. It was the same kind of answer which we in this House heard from the former Minister of Labour who has been promoted to a high position in the province of British Columbia. He also used to tell us that these matters could be handled through negotiations between the unions concerned and their employers. The present Minister of Labour of course realizes the background of the Freedman commission hearings. He knows that the Freedman commission was appointed by a former Liberal government as a result of an illegal work stoppage caused by a unilaterial decision of Canadian National to reorganize the operation of its trains so that the operating staff of the railway would have to undertake longer rims.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
A stoppage would have meant phasing out the whole town of Machin in northern Ontario. Because of the inability to reach an agreement, an illegal work stoppage took place. The government appointed Mr. Justice Freedman to inquire into the cause of the
May 12, 1970	COMMONS
stoppage and to make recommendations. Mr. Justice Freedman brought forward a report in which he recommended that in cases of technological and other industrial conversion changes which have a substantial effect on the work force, an employer should be required to negotiate with the union: should there be no agreement, an employer would be barred from making the changes until the contract had expired and the union had regained the right to negotiate and, if necessary, strike. That is precisely what is taking place with the CPR at the present time. The CPR made a unilaterial decision to reduce its clerical work force by 10 per cent. I presume the reasons are the use of computers and other equipment which require a much smaller clerical staff.
The union has an agreement with the company under which a fund was set up to take care of lay-offs of workers as a result of technological change. Under that provision, when lay-offs occur the company is required to make supplementary payments to the workers affected. The company is taking the very narrow view that it is not necessary for them to give this kind of notice because it was not a technological change which led to the lay-offs. The minister was correct in his answer when he said that the union could take the matter to arbitration. The minister knows even better than I that arbitration takes time and that, more important, it will cost the union a substantial amount of money. I submit that all this could have been avoided had the government followed its expressed views and had introduced legislation implementing the 1965 report of Mr. Justice Freedman.
Some days later I asked a question and received a very curt reply and rejection from the minister. In an interview on the CTV program "Question Period" the minister indicated that the government will introduce this legislation this fall. I suggest to the minister that he should follow the slogan used by the employment service for many years, "Why wait for spring? Do it now." I suggest to the minister that there is still time before the House adjourns for the government to introduce this legislation which so often has been promised. The legislation could be passed before the summer recess.


Hon. Robert Sianbury (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, in the unavoidable absence of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mack-
DEBATES	6893
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion asey), I with to reply to the hon. member. The announcement by CPR to lay off clerical personnel across the country raised the question of whether this action is in violation of the job security, technological, operational and organizational change agreement between the company and the Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks.
The company contends that the decision to effect a 10 per cent reduction in clerical costs, which will result in lay-offs, is in accordance with the provisions of the agreement. The employees who qualify would be entitled to weekly lay-off benefits or severance payments, training or relocation expenses. The union contends that the company's decision is an organizational change which, in accordance with the provisions of the agreement, requires the company to give advance notice to the union of changes in working conditions, also the number of employees who would be adversely affected. Under the agreement there is provision for matters in dispute to be referred to arbitration. We understand that the union is preparing its case for submission in the arbitration procedure.
On the more general question raised, Mr. Speaker, concerning the introduction of legislation which would incorporate the recommendations of the Freedman report, the Minister of Labour on numerous occasions has indicated his intention to introduce provisions in legislation designed to deal with the kind of problems considered by Mr. Justice Freedman in his report. Had the hon. member been present this morning when the Department of Labour estimates were before the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration, he would have heard the minister reiterate that he hopes to introduce in the House this fall amendments to the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act.
It is in this act we would logically look for action in respect of the issues raised by Freedman insofar as they relate to the collective bargaining process. Beyond this it does not seem appropriate to comment further at the present time.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS-SURVEY OF COST AND QUALITY OF CAR REPAIRS

['In those circumstances, perhaps the hon. member would like\nDEBATES\t6895\nProceedings on Adjournment Motion to defer his contribution to the adjournment debate to a later date.\nMotion agreed to and the House adjourned at 9.45 p.m.', 'Wednesday, May 13, 1970']
Barry Mather: Mr. Speaker, a few days ago on the Orders of the Day I asked the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Basford) whether his depart-
6894	COMMONS DEBATES	May 12, 1979
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion ment was conducting a survey of the automobile repair industry in Canada. His reply was "No." Believing, as I do, that this is a matter of great importance to millions of Canadian consumers, I have taken the opportunity of raising the question again tonight. I was somewhat surprised that the minister should say his department was not looking into this subject. It is more than a year ago that I asked whether his department would consider initiating in this country an investigation similar to the one being carried on in the United States before a Senate committee. The minister replied that he was aware of the United States inquiry and that he was obtaining a copy of the evidence placed before it so that he might judge its appropriateness to Canadian conditions. In view of the fact that some rather horrendous facts and figures about car repairs were brought to light in the course of that investigation, I am surprised that the minister has not taken any action in this area.
Again, on February 2 of this year I pursued the matter of complaints made by a consumer organization, the Automobile Protective Association of Canada, concerning alleged shortcomings of car repair clinics in Canada. At that time the minister said that he was not prepared to give me an answer; his department had been studying the matter very carefully but the jurisdiction of the federal government was somewhat doubtful except when fraud under the Criminal Code was involved, and he did not think the complaints referred to actually involved fraud.
Mr. Speaker, on February 5, just three days after the minister's reply, the Ontario Law Reports revealed that an Ottawa judge had ordered an Esso car clinic to pay $250 in damages to a motorist who accepted its diagnosis and bought a used car which soon broke down. The learned judge found that the consumer had been "led to believe that the engine of the car was in sound condition, calling for only very minor repairs." He was satisfied that no thorough examination of the engine had in fact been made. Since that time we have heard nothing further as to possible action by the Consumer Affairs Department to protect people who need their cars repaired.
In raising the matter now I wish to put a few figures on record to show the importance to Canadian consumers of car repair costs and

quality. I urge the minister to confer with his colleague the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) on the aspect of motor vehicle safety. This is a matter which affects both the lives and the pocketbooks of hundreds of thousands of Canadians. It costs Canadians approximately $27 a month just to repair and to maintain their cars. This amounts to about $2 billion a year. The car repair industry embraces about six million cars in Canada.
e (9:40 p.m.)
In the United States, the Senate inquiry was told that car repairs cost approximately $25 billion a year, and it was said that this was comparable with what Americans spend yearly for new cars. The auto repair business, according to an article in Canadian magazine of March 8, 1969, is "a jungle". This article quotes the head of Quebec's Automotive Service Association as saying: "When you take your car in to be fixed in this province, you really take your chances". There are a great many factors involved in the car repair problem, and this affects the car insurance business and the rates that people have to pay for car insurance.
In view of the magnitude of the car repair business, the vast number of Canadians affected, the high cost of and many complaints about the quality of repairs, and finally the safety factor involved, I have taken the privilege tonight of once more raising this question. I urge the minister to initiate in this country a similar investigation to that which was carried out in the United States.


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Mr. Speaker, may I apologize, through you, to the hon. member for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Basford) not being able to be in the House tonight. Owing to the early hour for the adjournment debate I am afraid I cannot reply to his question in detail, but I will be glad to bring it to the attention of the minister; I know he will be interested in the comments and suggestions of the hon. member.



Mr. Skoberg:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the situation with regard to the previous question applies to my question.


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
May 12. 1970	COMMONS


John Leroy Skoberg: Then with your permission, Mr. Speaker, may I leave my question on the Order Paper?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In those circumstances, perhaps the hon. member would like
DEBATES	6895
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion to defer his contribution to the adjournment debate to a later date.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 9.45 p.m.

Wednesday, May 13, 1970