1970-02-27

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make an announcement of a change of business for today and also for next Wednesday and Thursday. The order of business today will be as follows: government order No. 55, the Quarantine Act, will be the first item, to be followed by government order No. 71, the Parole Act, as the second item. The third and fourth items will be government order No. 43, report stage of Bill S-7, the Foreign Insurance Companies Act, and government order No. 65, with regard to televising the proceedings of the House. The opposition day will not be next Wednesday as announced but rather on Thursday of next week. The bill on the establishment of a Standards Council of Canada will not be proceeded with in the coming week.
Next Tuesday, after consultation, I will be making an announcement with regard to the business to take place on Wednesday in place of the opposition day.


Mr. Woolliams:: May I speak on this matter, Mr. Speaker? Could the House leader advise us at this stage whether there has been agreement among the House leaders that the bill amending the Parole Board Act will receive all readings today?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: My understanding is that there is no agreement on that point.



THE BUDGET


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table copies in the two official languages of the budgetary papers, and I ask for the consent of the House to have the papers printed as an appendix to
today's Votes and Proceedings and also included as an appendix to Hansard of Thursday, March 12, when I intend to present the budget.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: For text of papers referred to above, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]



ANNOUNCEMENT OF PAYMENTS FOR REDUCTION OF WHEAT ACREAGE

Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, the carryover of wheat in Canada will be approximately 950 million bushels on July 31 of this year, equivalent to nearly two years' disappearance. To reach a stock position in reasonable relationship to normal sales volumes, production of wheat must be reduced substantially below sales level. The number of years during which production need be so reduced depends upon the vigour with which the problem is attacked.
Closely related to the surplus in wheat is a current shortage of cash among western grain growers. The effects of a cash shortage are evident throughout the Prairies, but are particularly acute in Saskatchewan whose farmers are now carrying more than two-thirds of the total stocks on farms.
Unless strong action is taken now the prospect is for a heavy movement of acreage out of wheat and into coarse grains and oilseeds. The wheat producer is in a position in which he must attempt to increase his cash return. In large measure, this would lead to increased acreage in other crops. Our stock positions, particularly in oats and barley, are already high. A further increase in acreage in these crops this year would result in burdensome surplus and lower prices for these products. This would create extreme difficulties for producers whose incomes normally depend on the sales of these crops.
[DOT] (11:10 a.m.)
In oilseeds there is reason to believe that some increase can be accommodated without serious effects on prices and delivery levels

February 27, 1970
Grain Payments
available to producers. Indications are, however, that rapeseed acreages will be increased sharply this year to the point where surplus in this crop appears to be a likelihood.
We recognize that long-term adjustment programs are needed and the government is hard at work on these. In the meantime we are faced with a serious wheat surplus situation that must be relieved quickly if we hope to prevent this problem from seriously injuring the whole agricultural industry.
Producers on their own initiative reduced wheat plantings by five million acres in 1969. However, the current income and cash position of prairie grain producers makes it unrealistic to expect that producers would reduce plantings to a desirable level in 1970, bearing this further major adjustment without direct government assistance.
Government leadership is necessary if adjustment is to take place without creating more serious problems, not only for wheat farmers but for farmers throughout Canada, and by extension for the whole economy. Whatever government action is taken the weight of the adjustment must be borne by wheat producers themselves-and I believe they will accept the need to make the adjustment.
The government proposes to implement a program to reduce wheat acreage and to encourage farmers in the Wheat Board designated region to hold this land out of production of any crop this year. I have discussed this program fully with the leaders of farm organizations in western Canada and in many respects the program as it is now proposed has been improved by the adoption of their recommendations.
The proposed program is as follows:
Producers in the Wheat Board designated region who reduce wheat acreage below 1969 levels and increase summerfallow or perennial forage by the same amount will receive federal compensation payments of $6 per acre for additions to summerfallow or $10 per acre for additions to perennial forage acreage. Partial payment will be made before the end of July and the balance will be paid in the fall of this year.
Compensation payments will be available to a maximum of 22 million acres of additional summerfallow and 2 million acres of additional perennial forage. A maximum of 1,000 acres for any individual producer will be eligible for compensation payments.

The actual cost to the government of the program, which will be administered by the Canada Department of Agriculture, is estimated at $100 million.
Wheat delivery quotas for the 1970-71 crop year will be based on the total of
(a)	25 per cent of summerfallow acreage as stated on the producers 1969 permit book,
(b)	total acreage of summerfallow in 1970, and
(c)	the amount by which acreage in perennial forage in 1970 exceeds the acreage in perennial forage in 1969.
Quotas for oats, barley, soft spring wheat and other crops to which delivery quotas apply will be based on acres seeded to each crop in 1970. In addition, any producer may choose to allocate any or all of his acres qualified for wheat quota to any other crop instead of wheat.
This program will provide needed income to hard-pressed grain growers and encourage them to dispose of wheat stocks already piled up on their farms. It will allow farmers to cut back drastically on wheat acreage while at the same time discouraging the wholesale switch to other crops.
A sharp reduction in wheat stocks will greatly enhance the continuing effort to strengthen international wheat prices. Foreign buyers are not willing to pay top prices when they know we are sitting on a mountain of grain. If farmers get behind this program and support it to the fullest, as I am sure they will, the cash position of grain producers and the whole prairie economy will be substantially improved this fall.
This major initiative in reducing wheat stocks provides a unique opportunity for moving forward toward co-ordinated global programs of production policies for grain. The benefits from the new Canadian program will extend well beyond Canada to the world wheat economy. The governments of other exporting nations are similarly preoccupied with the problems of surplus production; some have programs in place or are examining new ones designed to minimize the problem. This initiative in Canada, which represents a new and much stronger attack on the problems of surplus production, should add impetus to international efforts to stabilize the world grain economy.
In order that this opportunity should not be lost, I have proposed to the governments of Australia, Argentina and the U.S.A. and to the Commission of the European Economic
February 27, 1970

Community that a meeting be held at ministerial level to review the Canadian program and consider complementary action which might be taken by others designed to compound its benefits internationally. I am confident these governments will agree to participate in an early meeting and I am hopeful this will mark a turning point in our efforts to rationalize the world grain situation.
In the meantime, every effort is being made to increase export sales. Increased food aid shipments and more attractive credit facilities have assisted the Canadian Wheat Board in attaining sales that will reach 375 million bushels this year, greater than any year save one in the history of the board from 1943 to the year of the first major purchase by the U.S.S.R. in 1963.
With the successful completion of this major reduction program, market forecasts indicate that Canada will be able to return to a level of production in the area of 20 million acres. Additional measures will be required in 1971 to assure that production does not exceed acceptable levels.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, one thought was expressed by the minister with which I am in complete agreement, that this is a situation which requires government leadership. After listening to the minister we are still waiting for that leadership. The opposition has been pressing for months to get the government to make commitments as to its long-range intention with regard to agricultural problems, including the extremely serious situation in western Canada. As usual, we have been fobbed off by the minister and his colleague the Minister of Agriculture who hide behind the officially accepted phrase that the government uses to cover up inaction and incompetence and inefficiency-"The government has the matter under consideration and will announce its policy in due course."
The day of "due course" has arrived, Mr. Speaker. The minister has laboured and produced a limited and shabby program for the farmers and the agricultural community in western Canada, all the people whose future looks so bleak. In light of the information we have, what he has produced is entirely inadequate. The fact is that the agricultural industry in general and certainly in the west has fallen into disastrous conditions, a disastrous situation. This is something which is not temporary but shows all signs of becoming a permanent blight brought on to a large extent, we recognize, by world conditions but
Grain Payments
certainly aggravated by the fact that this government is, and for some years has been bankrupt of ideas and intelligence in this regard. In our view and in the view of the agricultural community there is a sense of sterility and defeatism, and this is apparent in the statement made by the minister today.
Just yesterday, Mr. Speaker, in a special report to the Economic Council of Canada by Mr. S. C. Hudson, former director of economics in the federal Department of Agriculture, made a statement that some of the main reasons for the difficulties, particularly in western Canada agriculture, are the lack of uniformity in the protein content of Canadian wheat shipments, a lack of flexibility in pricing and insufficient market development work. There are other criticisms but these alone I give to the House today because of the limited time at my disposal.
The growing feeling of frustration, anger and alienation in the west will not be eased but will in fact be compounded by the minister's statement. As practical people we in the west do not expect miracles and understand that problems of the nature of those which afflict us will require long-range treatment. Certainly not since 1963 have we expected or received too much from this government, but we did feel entitled at least to some understanding and to some sympathetic consideration and proof of determined effort to get at the root of the problems.
I suppose we should not have expected or hoped for too much understanding from a government headed by a Prime Minister who publicly indicates his indifference to the problems of selling wheat, but we did hope for something better from the western representatives on the government side, particularly those in the cabinet. Not only have they been ineffective in pleading the cause of the west but in my humble opinion they have ended up as collaborators in proposing completely unacceptable programs. I do not think that any other countries in the world are taking this defeatist attitude.
What about the problems of the manpower surplus which is being created? What about crash manpower programs? What about the regional incentive programs designed to meet situations of this kind? What about surpluses which may result from changing the emphasis from wheat to other crops? What about the surplus wheat which will result from this land which is being summerfallowed? These are all questions which need to be answered and have not been answered.
Grain Payments

February 27, 1970
[DOT] (11:20 a.m.)
While, of course, many farmers will experience some temporary benefit from the program which has been announced, there is nothing in the statement nor in anything this government has suggested to show that the government has any real, long-range solutions to the problems affecting the people of western Canada. I say to the minister and to the government that what has been announced will not by itself prove an acceptable substitute for those things which must be done.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, the minister's statement demonstrates the government's complete intellectual bankruptcy. After having bungled the whole question of Canadian wheat marketing, the best solution this government can offer is to pay the farmers for not producing wheat. This government has been in office for some seven years and has done nothing to adopt aggressive sales policies like those followed by our competitors in wiorld markets.


Mr. Hees:: And by the previous government.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: It has continued using an anachronistic grading system. When some of our competitors were adopting a grading system based on protein content, this government continued employing a grading system which is out of date. Furthermore, this government allowed itself to be manoeuvred into dropping the old International Wheat Agreement and into organizing the International Grains Arrangement under GATT which eliminated the Soviet Union, one of our competitors, and left it free to do whatever it liked in this field.
The government also allowed itself to be manoeuvred into permitting an 11-month hiatus between the end of the International Wheat Agreement and the beginning of the International Grains Arrangement. The result was that during that period many of our competitors sold below the minimum price and continued selling below the minimum price even after the International Grains Arrangement came into effect. Canada was pushed more and more out of the market and some of our competitors have been successful in selling wheat, whereas we have not been as successful.
The best the government can do now is the program outlined today. When millions of people in a hungry world go to bed hungry every night, I submit it is the height of

insanity for a Liberal government to offer to pay farmers to take 22 million acres of land out of wheat production.
The minister's statement also represents a breach of faith with the wheat growers of western Canada. During the last election campaign the Prime Minister and some of his ministers said that the farmers could be sure that over a three-year period the government would be able to sell 1.3 billion bushels of wheat, an average of 433 million bushels yearly. On the basis of the price they were supposed to be guaranteed under the International Grains Arrangement, the farmers planted their wheat accordingly. The end result of all this is that the farmers have suffered a very drastic decline in their farm incomes in western Canada.
I notice that the National Farmers Union has sent the Prime Minister a bill for $385 million which it says is the difference between what the Prime Minister and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, who was then Minister of Agriculture, said the farmers would receive and what they actually received. The loss of $385 million to the wheat producers of western Canada represents not only a disaster for them but a catastrophe for the whole western economy. And what is the government offering in exchange? It is not offering them a diversification program. Instead, by calculation and design it will prevent farmers switching over into the production of other crops or increasing their cattle and other livestock.
The government has now introduced an element of compulsion by basing the wheat deliveries in the crop year 1970-71 on how much land the farmer puts into either sum-merfallow or perennial forage crops. They are virtually preventing the farmers from going into diversification by insisting that if they want to sell the wheat they have on hand they should get out of production of coarse grains and Wheat to the extent of 22 million acres.
The government is offering the farmers in compensation $6 an acre for wheat land put into summerfallow and $10 an acre for land put into perennial forage crops. I remind the House that the only other time acreage payments were paid for crop reduction was during the war. In 1941, when wheat was selling at the local elevator at 50 cents a bushel, the farmers were paid $4 per acre. On that basis the government should be paying at least $8 or $10 an acre for land to be put
February 27, 1970	COMMONS
into summerfallow. A payment of $6 an acre will not begin to compensate the farmers.
The members of this House should not be under the impression that there is no cost involved when putting land into summerfallow or perennial forage crops. It costs money to buy forage seed and to put the land into forage crops. These amounts of $6 and $10 will barely, if at all, cover the cost of summerfallow and putting land into perennial forage crops. Where is the compensation for the loss of income arising from the fact the farmer is not able to grow and deliver wheat to the Wheat Board? There is no compensation for that at all. This is a very small sop to throw the farmers of western Canada who have been betrayed by this government on whose promises the farmers depended. They now find that those promises are completely worthless.
We cannot discuss this matter at length, Mr. Speaker, because we are on motions, but I submit to Your Honour and the government that an early opportunity should be provided during which this whole matter can be debated in the House. An opportunity should be given for the minister to be more specific about some of the details which we cannot get during the question period. I hope an opportunity will be provided next week so we can have a full debate on this question.
I am convinced that the wheat producers of western Canada and the people of the prairie provinces in particular will be disappointed and disgusted at this "Minnie" mouse that has been brought forth by the government after a long labour.
,[Translation]


Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, the efforts of the government to try anid find a solution to the intricate problem facing wheat producers should not make us lose sight of certain basic principles which are to be preserved.
Can we allow for immediate application of a solution such as the one proposed by the minister in his statement, and I quote:
A sharp reduction in wheat stocks will greatly enhance the continuing effort to strengthen international wheat prices.
In working towards an increase in prices, are we not contributing to create inflation which the government has tried to combat by all possible means in the last few months? On the one hand, we are trying to prevent increases in salaries and prices and, on the other hand, we adopt a measure designed to increase prices.
DEBATES	4163
Copper Market and Price
If Providence has provided us with a great abundance of consumer goods, man should benefit by it.
And if we are enjoying abundance, we should normally let the greatest possible number of people profit thereof, beginning with Canadians. It is, in my opinion, a basic humanitarian principle.
The proposed solution could at the most temporarily encourage a certain number of producers, but as pointed out by the previous speakers, it does not solve that thorny problem.
Therefore, the government should consider the solutions which we have always advocated, that is the creation of new means of distribution and if necessary, the reduction rather than an increase of prices, in order to encourage the human being, which should be the object of every logical policy.
[DOT] (11:30 a.m.)



INDUSTRY


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to advise the House that after consultation with the Prices and Incomes Commission, I have informed the copper and copper concentrate producers, the secondary materials handlers and the copper fabricators, that as of March 1 the supply of copper into the domestic market will be assured at a level of 23,500 tons per month at a price of 59 cents per pound. This price, the lowest in the world, is 7 cents less than the 66 cents per pound price announced by the producers on January 1. It compares with the United States effective price of 69 cents per pound Canadian and the London Metals Exchange price of 80 cents per pound Canadian. This is a positive step in the direction of containing inflationary pressures in our economy.

Mr. Speaker, the secondary materials handlers have been advised that our export of copper scrap will be limited to the level of exports during the last six months of 1969. This level is 4,000 tons per month or 20 per cent less than the 1969 average.
In order to provide for a more equitable distribution between producers of the supply requirement of 23,500 tons per month, all
February 27, 1970

Copper Market and Price mines east of the Rockies will now be required to make an appropriate contribution to this supply.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the House has been interested to hear the minister's statement. It appears he has been moving in the right direction and I commend him for it.
Now that he has done this, perhaps he can take a little time to aid his colleague in charge of the Wheat Board to dispose of our vast quantities of wheat, because our wheat disposal program today is worse than it has been for 14 years-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


George Harris Hees: -recalling the deplorable situation which the previous Liberal government allowed to occur.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's comments should be limited to the statement made by the minister.
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North)': Mr. Speaker, on January 1, 1969 the price of copper was 45 cents a pound. Before this last increase, about which there has been negotiation between the government and the copper producers, there had already been three increases concerning which the government made no comment. The result is that even taking into account the agreement on the part of the copper producers to limit their present price to 59 cents a pound, increases in the price of copper during the last 13 months amount to more than 30 per cent. This does not take into account the fact, which the minister has admitted, that the price of 59 cents a pound will not cover all the needs of Canadian users of copper; they will have to pay a good deal more for a substantial percentage of the copper they require.
This increase in price comes at a time when the profits of the copper producers-Noranda, Inco, Falconbridge, Texas Gulf-are higher than they ever were in the past. Their admitted profits, which are less than their actual profits, have been increasing by more than 10 per cent a year. The acquiescence on the part of the government makes it clear that price increases are not caused by wage increases. Price increases amounting to more than 30 per cent in one year amount to substantially more than any wage increases won by workers in the copper industry in that year. It is

also clear that the government's appeal to industry to hold any price increases which they may implement to a figure less than the actual increase in costs has been a failure.
There is no evidence that the copper producers demonstrated to the Prices and Incomes Commission or to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs or to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, who made this statement today, that this increase to which the hon. gentleman is agreeing has been made necessary by increased costs or falling profits. It is obvious the increase is due to the fact that the world price of copper has substantially increased because of the shortage of copper. The copper companies are saying they are entitled to this increase because they could get more in the United States. I suggest to the minister and to the government that the workers in this industry or in any other industry would be less than human if they did not take the same attitude of being entitled to ask, fight for and get whatever the traffic will bear, just as the copper companies have done, and to ignore the pious appeals made by the Prime Minister and the hon. gentleman that they should show some restraint in the future.


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) who was kind enough to make his statement available to us in both official languages, and I will try to keep my comments as brief as his statement.
The minister announced that a decision has been taken with a view to keeping prices at a level below that of the American and the London markets. At first sight, this decision would give to understand that if would-be London customers could buy copper on the Canadian market at 21 cents less than on their domestic market or at 10 cents less than in the United States we would increase the number of our customers. But the minister and the government saw fit to set the Canadian production at the level of 23,500 tons a month.
Besides, the minister says that producers in eastern Canada should try not to exceed that production level. I think that is a normal attitude, because even if they could produce much more and new mines could be developed to give work to thousands of unemployed, the government is slow in announcing whether the subsidies to gold mines development will be renewed this year. The
February 27, 1970	COMMONS
uncertainty causes great worry to mining producers and, particularly, to the miners of northwestern Quebec, an important mining region.
The two statements will greatly disturb the mine workers in eastern Canada who are the most affected.
[DOT] (11:40 a.m.)



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I had a question to pose to the Minister without Portfolio who made a statement today, and in this connection I should like to raise a question of privilege in order to call Your Honour's attention to a criticism I should like to make. The minister made a statement which posed more questions than it gave answers, and I think it is shameful that the minister and the Minister of Agriculture have run out of the House before exposing themselves to proper questioning.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Gerald William Baldwin: I direct my question to the Prime Minister. In light of the urgency posed by the special report of the Economic Council of Canada, and having in mind the valid criticism of the minister's statement voiced today, is it the intention of the government of Canada to propose, in addition to the inadequate measures announced today, some long-range solutions to the problems facing our agricultural producers in western Canada?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the minister will be back shortly. Perhaps he has played the usual opposition trick of running out to get to the television cameras before hon. gentlemen opposite do.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: Listen to the old shrugger. Come on, get those arms working.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, I think the Prime Minister has imputed motives to members on this side.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
DEBATES	4195
Inquiries of the Ministry


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: It seems to me the Prime Minister is taking a very childish approach to the serious problems that arc confronting western Canada.


Mr. Maclnnis:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will recognize the hon. member in a moment. I understand the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands has a supplementary.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: No, Mr. Speaker, I was not rising on a supplementary.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry. Then I recognize the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. In view of the Prime Minister's childish approach I would ask Your Honour to rule whether or not it is proper that the Prime Minister should come into this House and bring his toys with him.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not think we should get involved in this situation too deeply. This type of point of order or question of privilege has been raised before, and I have made rulings in the past which would indicate that the point raised by the hon. member is well taken.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The point has obviously been well taken. I recognize the right hon. member for Prince Albert.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I would direct my question to the Prime Minister. Having regard to the way in which he spoke on February 18, when he said prices were going to be kept reasonable and restrained-and he particularly mentioned freight rates-and since both the CNR and the CPR have given notice that on the first day of March they intend to raise their rates on livestock and a range of other commodities, which again will strike a further blow against agriculture, will the Prime Minister say what representations were made to the CNR and the CPR? In particular, in view of the fact that the CNR is a government-owned railway, what is going to be done to prevent this increase taking place?
4166	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Perhaps the Minister of Transport wants to answer this question.


John George Diefenbaker: No; I asked the Prime Minister, who told us how he was going to save this nation from inflation. Now he cannot answer the question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what the Canadian Transport Commission will be doing with regard to this application, if such be the case. However, I will make sure that the Prices and Incomes Commission considers these facts as they have been stated.


John George Diefenbaker: As the increase of livestock rates-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Has the right hon. gentleman a supplementary question?


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, Mr. Speaker. As these increases will be taking effect as of the first day of March, which is two days away, will the Prime Minister personally have the matter looked into, or does this mean the end of all those roseate promises in regard to inflation that he made on February 18?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If the right hon. gentleman has been following the evolution of this situation, he will have seen that there has never been any statement made that prices or charges will be frozen absolutely, but rather that there will be voluntary restraint. I also said that if restraint did not come about voluntarily, then governments at all levels would consider other measures. No decision was made at any level, at least that I know of, that before increases took place governments should intervene. What we said was that if increases were miade that were not justified, then we would intervene.


John George Diefenbaker: One further supplementary question. Since this will be the second increase in freight rates on meat and livestock within one year, does the Prime Minister consider that the railway corporation owned by the people of Canada is exercising a reasonable and responsible sense of restraint, something to which he gave such voluble and vocal support?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.

DEBATES	February 27, 1970



WHEAT-ACREAGE REDUCTION PAYMENTS- LONG-RANGE SOLUTIONS TO PROBLEMS- IMPROVEMENT OF SALES

Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister without Portfolio who is in charge of the Wheat Board.


John George Diefenbaker: Has he returned from the television cameras?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I can understand the minister leaving the chamber to get on television, though if he were like the Prime Minister he would have so much free time that he would not need to leave the House for that purpose. May I ask the minister, arising out of the statement he has made today, whether the provisions relating to these acreage reduction payments will be brought down in the form of legislation, and whether they will apply to this crop year only or is this to be a continuing program until further notice?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the form of the acreage payment will be made apparent in short order. The program is, of course, one that is specifically designed to meet a surplus production of 22 million acres, or approximately 500 million bushels of wheat, and is tailored to that end. Therefore, given full compliance with and the fullest participation in the program on the part of the farmers, the program is for one year only.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question. The minister did not answer the first part of my question. Will these payments be made in accordance with legislation passed by this House, or does the minister plan some other method of making these payments? Will a bill be brought down to provide for these acreage payments?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the intention is that the amount required for these payments will appear in the supplementary estimates and will be before the House in that form.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister tell the House on what basis he arrived at the figure of $6 an acre for summerfallow and $10 an acre for perennial forage crops? Is this based on the cost of performing the work, or what?
February 27, 1970	COMMONS


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, we looked at a great variety of material in arriving at this result, the cost per acre in maintaining the land in a state of minimum production, and being mindful, of course, of the saving that is in fact made by a farmer in his cost of production. So in that sense his stated minimum production figures are not particularly relevant. We had long discussions with the farm leaders about the amounts involved and the total cash position in arriving at the figures.


Gerald William Baldwin: In light of the criticisms voiced and statements made in the special report of the Economic Council of Canada, has the government any intention to bring forward proposals for long-range solutions to deal with the causes and not just the effects as was done in the minister's statement today?


Otto Emil Lang: With regard to some of the causes as stated in the Economic Council report, we have engaged in a most vigorous campaign to improve the sales effort in every way possible through legislation extending credit facilities, food aid programs, and in every other way. We also have under consideration many programs of a long-term nature designed to look at other aspects of the agricultural industry in an effort to allow the maximum benefit from his product to be returned to the farmer through the elimination of waste through inefficiency which results from the situation being not in the best possible condition.


George Harris Hees: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that Canada's sales of wheat and wheat flour are 31 per cent below what they were in the last crop year against a drop of only 6 per cent in the United States and again of over 50 per cent by Argentina and Australia, would the minister take the first opportunity on motions to outline what steps he and the government intend to take to bring our selling effort in respect of wheat and wheat flour far closer to those of our three major competitors?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I have in fact referred to that matter in the statement I made on motions today. I trust the hon. member will eventually appreciate that the exports for the rest of this year indicate a very good record indeed.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, when the minister came up with this program of bonusing people for not pro-21701-53
DEBATES	4167
Inquiries of the Ministry during, was any thought given to soil conservation or soil erosion and the fact that his program may turn western Canada into a dust bowl such as we have seen in the past?


Otto Emil Lang: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we gave very careful consideration to this issue. The inclusion of two million acres of forage of course was related to the probable maximum amount of seed available, but in the actual development of the program we are making clear to farmers that the definition of summerfallow will include the planting of a cover crop to avoid erosion and soil problems to which the hon. member referred.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the minister gave any thought to the fact that grass seed now costs more than 70 cents a pound and that his program will not fit into the economics of the agricultural industry so that it will be able to buy the seed?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, we did have a hard look at the amount of grass seed available. Of course that is a limiting factor in the conversion of acreage from wheat production into forage. It is for that reason, as I indicated, we have placed the two million acre figure as a limit on the amount on which payment would be made for conversion to forage this year.


Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister without Portfolio in charge of the Wheat Board. In making his announcement today of aid to western farmers he included a proposed quota system for the next crop year. In the past there has been a great deal of stress placed on equalizing the system across the whole wheat producing area. Could he outline to the House how the program of assistance works in conjunction with the quota system he has announced, because the two will be working at cross-purposes?


Otto Emil Lang: In fact, Mr. Speaker, the two are designed to work very much in a complementary fashion. The extended quota will in fact be obtained by farmers who maintain land in a fallow condition or who put it into forage and who will be unable to sell wheat from those acres. We anticipate there may be a total of approximately 53 million acres eligible for the wheat quota under this system and in those circumstances the quota on those acres next year would be 8 bushels per acre.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker-
4168	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will allow the hon. member tor Crowfoot's supplementary, but I suggest that in a moment or two we might go on to the next subject and if there is time return to this very important matter later during the question period. However, I will allow the hon. member a supplementary.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I understand your concern, but this is a very important matter to western Canada. The minister has suggested the two are complementary to each other. Surely he will agree that those people who will receive the low quota next fall and next year will also be in a position to receive the low assistance in respect of summerfallow and forage because of the very area in which they live?


Otto Emil Lang: The program, by its nature tailored to meet the need of the grains industry and particularly the surplus position in the grains industry, does affect differently people who are in a surplus grain position from people who are not truly in the grains industry but who are in mixed farming. There is no doubt, therefore, about the unevenness of the impact of the program in that regard, but I think it is fully justified consistent with the objective of the program.



FINANCE


Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: I have a question for the Prime Minister. In view of the spiraling increase in the profits of chartered banks during the quarter ending January 31, 1970, as compared to the corresponding quarter last year-the Bank of Montreal, for instance, showing profits increased by 40 per cent during the last quarter-does the government consider requesting the banks to take drastic action against inflation?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, the three months' figures produced for the banks I think were simply that, three months' figures. As I understand the forecasts they are that their profits over all for the year will not increase proportionately to their increase in volume of business. I should also like to point out that the banks have indicated to the Prices and Incomes Commission that they would not widen the margin between their borrowing and lending rates.

DEBATES	February 27, 1970


Léonel Beaudoin: May I put a supplementary question to the Minister of Finance? His reply to me was that the interest rates should be equalized. Does this mean he intends to request the banks to actually lower their interest rates?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I did not say that the interest rates would be equalized but that the agreement with the Prices and Incomes Commission was that the margin of profit would not be widened with respect to the borrowing and lending rates. Also, as I recall it the charges by the banks would not be increased.


Mr. Andre Fortin (Loibiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
Since the chartered banks undertook during meetings of the Prices and Incomes Commission to restrain credit and not the interest rates or their profits, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance if he could submit to the Prices and Incomes Commission a proposal to limit the banks' profits to the advantage of the Canadian people?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. friend needs to read the agreement that was arrived at and announced by the Prices and Incomes Commission.



POLLUTION


Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. In view of the importance of thoroughly researching this urgent question at the highest scientific levels before far-reaching decisions are made affecting the waterways of this country, has the matter of phosphate detergents been referred to the Science Council of Canada and, if so, when may we expect to know the recommendations of the Prime Minister's science adviser on this matter?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I think I have made known the policy of the government in respect of phosphates. Of course we received advice from all the regular channels that are available on science matters to
February 27, 1970	COMMONS
the government. Also, my officials went outside government areas to make very sure the advice we received was complete in this regard.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, as a Member of Parliament and the representative of the people of Vancouver-Kingsway I believe I have the right to ask the government to end the conspiracy of silence which is now surrounding the pollution of our waterways by phosphate detergents. Powerful economic interests are trying to delay or prevent action to ban phosphate detergents.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I doubt whether this is a question of privilege. It seems to me that the hon. member is engaging in debate. Perhaps the hon. member might ask a supplementary question.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, may I say with great respect that I do not do this often. I think this is the first time I have raised a question of privilege, and I really would like Your Honour to hear me further because it is very important. The fact is that powerful interests are trying to delay and prevent action to ban phosphate detergents, using the argument that no proper substitute is available. Previously, I asked whether this matter had been referred to the National Research Council, and now I ask whether it is being referred to the Science Council of Canada, even though I know that the chairman of the Science Council is also the vice chairman of the company that makes the phosphates and thus has a monopoly over detergent manufacture in Canada.
I would like an answer to my question from the Prime Minister himself. Last time he put it off on the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, and this time he did not even have to do that. I would like to have an answer from him.


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the brief supplementary question of the hon. member I might point out to her, that, to the best of my knowledge, Canada is the first country in the world to announce that we are going to ban phosphates. I think that is pretty good action.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John James Greene: I might point out that even in a socialist haven such as Sweden they have not banned phosphates.
21701-53J
DEBATES	4169
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Louis-Roland Comeau (South Western Nova):: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Can the minister tell us once and for all which government, federal or provincial, will introduce legislation or whatever action is necessary to ban phosphates?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. David Anderson (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps because of the length of the question asked by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway, the real point was lost. Has Dr. Solandt, who is an official of the Canadian government, been asked for his opinion on the question of phosphate detergents and phosphate pollution, since it is precisely this official of the Canadian government who is also vice-president of the Electric Reduction Company, the sole producer of phosphate?


Mr. Fairweaiher:: Don't embarrass them.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The Science Council would normally come under my jurisdiction, and I have no knowledge of such a request having been made to them. I take it that the minister himself does not seem to know of any such request having been made. I am a little bewildered as to what the opposition really want. If we ask the Science Council, they would say that the president is prejudiced; if we do not ask the Science Council for advice they would say we should.


Louis-Roland Comeau: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask why my question was not allowed? There is confusion as to which government, federal or provincial, is to take action on this matter. I should like the minister to clarify the situation.


John James Greene: I announced in queer,
unequivocal-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: It's catching.


John James Greene: For the benefit of hon. members, I should announce it in simple terms that we are going to ban phosphates.


Mr. Speaker:: I think we should go on to another subject.
4170	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry NATIONAL DEFENCE



PURPOSE OF OPERATION &quot;VIKING&quot; IN ARCTIC

Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: I have a question for the Minister of National Defence but I see he has been temporarily called out of the House so I will direct it to the Prime Minister. Can he say whether operation Viking to start in April, is related in any way to the permanent establishment of Canadian troops on the islands of the Canadian Arctic?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will have to ask the member to repeat the question to the minister when he comes back.
I am not aware of this.



USE OF ARCTIC WATERS BY RUSSIAN SUBMARINES

Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. Can he tell us whether or not permission has been given to the Soviet Union for submarines to proceed through the waters of the Canadian Arctic? Perhaps he can tell us that.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I do not know that the Soviet Union has asked for such permission.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I have a final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is there any evidence that the Russians have landed any equipment on our Arctic islands? Now, surely-


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Surely. I know of no such evidence. Obviously if the hon. member has some important communication to that effect, he should at once get in touch with the Minister of National Defence or the Solicitor General.


Gerald William Baldwin: Where is he?


George Harris Hees: He is supposed to be here. That is what we are trying to do.



PROTECTION OF LASER INVENTION BY VAL-CARTIER DEFENCE RESEARCH ESTABLISHMENT

Mr. Paul St. Pierre (Coast Chilcotin):: My
question is also directed to the Minister of National Defence, but since he is not here perhaps I should direct it to his Parliamentary Secretary. It arises out of recent developments at the Defence Research Board establishment at Valcartier, where one of our scientists has apparently made a major discovery relating to the industrial use of laser beams. Since licencing of firms for production

DEBATES	February 27, 1970
seems to be imminent, can the minister tell the House what steps are being taken to ensure that this invention will be retained for development in Canada by Canadians?


Mr. David Groos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: I can inform the hon. member that the Canadian government has taken out what we think are all the necessary patents to protect this invention. We have informed the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce what the invention is all about. We have briefed the industry, particularly the electronics industry, and we are now awaiting proposals.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: In the absence of the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, may I direct my question to the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the fact that there has been a 33 per cent increase in unemployment in metro Toronto in the last month, is it the intention of the Prime Minister and of his government to deliberately continue policies that create unemployment?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for York South.


Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, I realize that my question is on a subject which might seem mundane to the Prime Minister. May I therefore rephrase it and ask if we could arrange, if possible, to send him over a baby's rattle to add to his collection of toys.



ST. JOHN'S, NFLD.-CLOSING OF CNR NO. 1 TRANSIT SHED

Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, in this dramatic question period I have a mild question to ask the Minister of Transport arising out of the closing of the CNR No. 1 transit shed in St. John's, Newfoundland. I want to ask the minister whether he received a wire on this subject sent to him on February 16 by the president of the Longshoremens Protective Union, whether he has replied to it, and if he has not replied to it, why?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: I am not sure of the dates or whether the hon. member is referring to the
February 27, 1970

second wire. I suspect that he is. I did reply to the first one and held a meeting with the group in question.


David Lewis: What was the result of the
meeting?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: The reason for the failure to reply-and I know a reply is now being prepared, but whether or not it has been sent I am not certain-was that an attempt was made to try to get something in the way of specific information regarding what the intentions of CNR were. I regret to say that at present there does not appear to be additional freight that could be channelled through that particular route.


David Lewis: Has the minister discussed with CNR the possibility of grouping together freight destined for St. John's on to one ship which could be unloaded at that transit shed?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, a number of alternatives have been discussed. The simple truth is that at present the total volume of freight going to the province is not adequate to keep the facilities going at the various ports of entry, and any such diversion as was proposed would simply result in transferring unemployment from one port to another. In other words, the main objective has to be to try to get additional freight, and this is what is now being attempted.



FINANCE


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister.
Could he inform the House whether he or his government has received an ultimatum from the Quebec government with regard to the refund of the $200 million collected for Medicare?


Mr. Speaker:: I seem to recall that the question has already been asked. However, the Prime Minister may answer the hon. member.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with interest to your remarks and, when reading recent issues of Hansard, I saw that this question had not been asked, that we are in fact dealing with an ultimatum from the government of Quebec.
Inquiries of the Ministry
This is why I should like to know whether the federal government has received from the Quebec government a certain ultimatum concerning those $200 million.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, a request, not an ultimatum, was made about this at the last federal-provincial conference. If the hon. member refers to a particular form of ultimatum, I must answer no. There was none in my opinion because, when the request was made to the federal government, we replied that the health insurance scheme had been established by the federal government, after consultations with the government of Quebec. It is unfortunate for the province of Quebec that the present government has taken so much time to implement this program, but we are glad that the people of Quebec, thanks to funds from the federal government, will benefit from this health insurance plan beginning July 1.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister, whom I wish to thank for his most interesting and detailed answer.
Is there at the present time a group of experts from the federal government who are investigating this matter in co-operation with provincial officials?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The answer to this particular question is no, Mr. Speaker. But, the hon. member is perhaps referring to certain dealings between federal and provincial officials with regard to the transfer of $12 million to the province of Quebec in aid of technical schools. The Quebec authorities refuse these funds because they do not want to tell the people of the province that this money was provided by the federal government. So, if the province of Quebec refuses to accept these $12 million, it is its own problem.



TAXATION


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. It has to do with the report ini the morning press to the effect that the Liberal members of the House have raised strong objections to various sections of the white paper and that there is hope of repentance on the part of the minister. Would he say whether or not he is in a position to
4172	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry quieten down the tremendously aroused feeling in this country regarding many of the provisions of the white paper, and whether repentance is about to take place or a second retreat from Moscow?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member for Laval.


Edgar John Benson: My right hon. friend knows all about retreats.


Mr. Marcel Roy (Laval):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board.
Does the minister intend-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I regret to have to interrupt the hon. memberlEnglish]


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The minister is one of those who always answers and I am sure the country would like to hear him answer.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.



AGRICULTURE


Marcel-Claude Roy: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board.
Does he intend to reduce the per unit subsidy for the transportation of feed grain and, if so, does he intend to set up a free market between the Canadian provinces?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the question of the feed grain freight assistance is under the jurisdiction of my colleague, the Minister of Agriculture. The question of free marketing between different sections of the country does fall, of course, within the responsibility of the Canadian Wheat Board. The Wheat Board is concerned about the problems involved in the existing pricing situation and is giving consideration to that matter at all times.



AIR TRANSPORT


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Roy-al: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question

DEBATES	February 27, 1970
to the right hon. Prime Minister. How has Canada responded to the initiative of the government of Sweden and the request of the Air Line Pilots Association for an international conference on protection of aircraft from acts of sabotage?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, we have responded favourably to all such proposals and we have indicated that when these meetings are called under any auspices we would be prepared to participate.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Supply and Services. In view of the impending shutdown of Fairey Aviation at Halifax, can the minister say whether the contracts for the government on which Fairey Aviation is working have been allocated to some other firm? I refer to the Argus aircraft and one or two other contracts.


Hon. James Richardson (Minisier of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, as is widely know Fairey Aviation have announced their intention to close their operations on March 31. I understand negotiations have taken place for the purchase of their plants by other companies, and particularly by one other company. If those negotiations are completed and their plants are sold, then of course there will be a prospect that government contracts could be negotiated with the new owners.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Mr. R. R. Souiham (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I would like to direct to the Minister of Transport. It relates to a question I directed to him two weeks ago and to which he said he would give consideration. Can the minister say whether he has consulted with his colleague, the Minister of Labour, as to what action may be taken to relieve the serious unemployment that will come about by the implementation of the CNR master agency plan that is slated to come into effect on April 1 of this year?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Well, Mr. Speaker, I have discussed this with the Minister of Labour and
February 27, 1970	COMMONS DEBATES	4173
Inquiries of the Ministry
also with the railways. These talks are con- perhaps the committee might wish to summon tinuing to see what can be done to alleviate the vice-president, and I am sure he would the situation.	wish to attend, and there give the details.



ATLANTIC REGION-CUTBACK IN MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYEES

Robert Muir: As a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, is the minister in a position to advise the House as to the representations he has been making with regard to the large scale cutbacks of CNR employees in the Atlantic region?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I understand, Mr. Speaker, that as a result of representations made by the hon. member, and through me to the CNR, meetings have been held by CNR officials with representatives of the employees in the Atlantic region. I do not know what the outcome in specific terms was, other than a report that the meetings were regarded by all present as satisfactory.


Robert Muir: thank the minister for his answer and he has quite correctly said they were excellent meetings, but would he also direct his attention to the latest development, namely, a report that 50 maintenance of way men are to be laid off in the eastern region between new Glasgow and Sydney? Will the minister report back to the House on that situation?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will report.



NEWFOUNDLAND-REPORT ON INQUIRY INTO OPERATIONS

Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingale):: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I am wondering when a report will be received on the request for an inquiry into CN operations in Newfoundland, a report which was asked for two months ago and promised on request in the House three weeks ago?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I have held meetings with the vice-president of the Atlantic region of CNR, and it is purely and simply a matter of trying to find the proper forum through which the details of the CNR's plans could be made known. The Standing Committee on Transport and Communications conceivably might be the appropriate body. I suggest that when the estimates are before that committee,


John Howard Lundrigan: As a further supplementary-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There are only two minutes left in the question period, and there are 25 members who wish to ask questions.


John Howard Lundrigan: On a question of privilege, two weeks ago in the House of Commons a question was raised about an inquiry into CN operations in Newfoundland. The minister at that time gave the assurance that at the beginning of the next week, which was about three days after the question was raised, he would give a report on this inquiry into CN operations in Newfoundland to hon. members, or at least to the hon. member requesting this report. He has not done so and that is why I am asking the question, because there is a tremendous anxiety in the province about this matter.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr. R. L. Whiting (Hallon):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Has the government made representations to the credit card companies, and those companies and financial institutions who use this method to promote business, requesting them to regulate the availability and to limit the use of these cards in an effort to curb inflation?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I have not made any such direct representations. I will inquire of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and of the Prices and Incomes Commission to see if any such representations have been made.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

Mr. J. Edward Broadbeni (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the government's imaginative decision to pay our farmers not to grow wheat, is the minister thinking of applying this principle to other sectors of the economy? For example, will he consider paying unemployed auto workers in Oshawa and Windsor not to produce cars?
4174	COMMONS DEBATES	February 27, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry
[Translation]	people in Canada who wish to discuss the
FINANCE	white paper proposals logically and who wish
to be informed rather than-



QUEBEC-REQUEST FOR REFUND OF $200

[Stage Direction]
million collected for medicare	An "on- Member: They sure do.
Mr. Georges Valade (Sainle-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister.
Does he intend to suggest to the province of Quebec an alternative other than the one mentioned to enable Quebec to recover the $200 million paid for Medicare?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, as several ministers and myself have indicated, Quebec has recovered, in various forms, including equalization payments, substantially more than $200 million, and that out of the income taxes levied in other provinces. Accordingly, the federal government is constantly making payments to the provincial government under one item or another, and the total amount thus paid is well over $200 million.


René Matte: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question.
Does the Prime Minister believe that the independence of Quebec is worth $200 million?



TAXATION


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancas-ter):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Did the minister's special assistant, Mr. Peter Farwell, appear in public at a meeting in Arnprior last night and try to answer questions on the white paper?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would not think that question is in order. If there is any urgency it can be discussed at the time of adjournment or placed on the Order Paper. The question as asked does not indicate there is any urgency in the matter.


Thomas Miller Bell: Then may I rephrase my question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the traditional practice around here that executive and special assistants do not appear in public at any time, may I ask the minister if he is so desperate and hard up he has to get these fellows to defend the white paper?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, there are a vast number of


Edgar John Benson: -get the kind of propaganda they are getting from some agencies in the country. I see nothing wrong with members of my staff being willing to explain, not defend but to explain, the contents of the white paper just as I have been doing across the country trying to achieve-


An hon. Member:: Trying, trying, that's right-non-partisan.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Resign.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. As the question period expired some minutes ago I regret that I have, under the rules, to call orders of the day. The hon. member for St. John's East on a point of order.


Mr. McGrath:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I tried without success to get your attention today because I had a question to direct to the Minister of Transport. Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, I might avail myself of this opportunity to thank the hon. member for York South who directed the question to the minister and whose interest in national affairs seems to know no bounds. Mr. Speaker, perhaps you will permit me, with the consent of the House, to direct another question to the Minister of Transport.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have no objection whatsoever if there is unanimous consent. The hon. member will recognize that, unfortunately, he was not the only one who was deprived of an opportunity to ask a question. However, after the question period is over, if hon. members who have not had an opportunity to ask their questions seek to do so on a point of order, we might as well go back to the rule book and change it substantially. I have stretched a point by allowing a number of minutes beyond the time allotted under the Standing Orders and I am not sure I have the right to do even that. This having been said, if there is unanimous consent the hon. member could ask the question.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Apparently there is agreement, so the hon. member may ask the question.


James Aloysius McGrath: Perhaps this would not be necessary if certain members observed cer-
February 27, 1970

tain fundamental rules of ethics in this House. The question I should like to direct to the Minister of Transport is, has he received a report-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I understand the hon. member for York South is rising on a point of order.


David Lewis: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. member was not suggesting that another hon. member has no right to ask a question that may not concern something in his constituency when the hon. member was specifically asked to do so by the longshoremen in St. John's, some of whom I had the pleasure to meet on my recent trip. I think the hon. member is really out of order in suggesting something about ethics.


Mr. Mcllraiih:: He was referring to the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate.


James Aloysius McGrath: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I have raised this question in the House on a number of occasions. What I was referring to was the apparent lack of ethics on the part of the hon. member for York South.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member can certainly not suggest that one of his colleagues in the House of Commons has acted in an unethical way in asking a question, even if the question does not relate to a matter in his constituency. I think it would be much easier if the hon. member, having been granted the unanimous agreement of the members of the House including the member for York South, proceeded to ask the question or even a supplementary at this time.


James Aloysius McGrath: I did not quite finish my question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member for York South said something which has no foundation in fact and which is not true. He said I had failed to respond to requests from longshoremen in St. John's to bring this matter before the House of Commons. This statement is untrue and I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member should withdraw it.


An hon. Member:: Oh, sit down.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to take the time of the House, but I said nothing of the sort. I did not refer to the hon. member at all. I simply said that I asked the question at the specific request of the longshoremen I happened to meet in St. John's. As a matter 21701-54
Parole Act
of fact, I know the hon. member has written to the minister as I have seen the exchange of correspondence-


James Aloysius McGrath: That is not what you said.


David Lewis: -and I have no hesitation in congratulating him for doing it. I never said anything of the sort.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps we may go on to orders of the day.
[DOT] (12:30 p.m.)



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


George James McIlraith: that Bill S-12, an Act to prevent the introduction into Canada of infectious or contagious diseases, as reported (with amendment) from the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs, be concurred in.


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



PAROLE ACT


George James McIlraith: that Bill S-19, to amend the Parole Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this somewhat brief bill is brought forward in order to rephrase two sections of the Parole Act to give them the meaning that they were thought to have when they were enacted by the Parliament of Canada and which they were thought to have by the administration having the responsibility for the act.
The first section sought to be amended in the bill is section 11A which was enacted last year in the Criminal Law Amendment Act providing that multiple sentences be treated

February 27, 1970
Parole Act
as a single sentence. The significance of that clause was to make clear the basis for computing remission. The object of section 11 A, when it was enacted, was to provide that multiple sentences of imprisonment be treated as a single combined sentence in calculating the term of imprisonment for the purposes of the Penitentiary Act, the Prisons and Reformatories Act and the Parole Act. In habeas corpus proceedings in the courts last fall the section was interpreted in a way quite different from what it was thought to mean up to that point. The effect of the judgment, if I may summarize briefly, is that irrespective of the date that terms of imprisonment are imposed on an inmate who is in confinement serving a sentence, the date of the commencement of subsequent terms of imprisonment is the date on which he was originally confined.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Is the minister referring to the sentencing or the confinement?


George James McIlraith: To when he was sentenced.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That is better.


George James McIlraith: This leads to absurdities and does not carry out the intention of Parliament or the court doing the sentencing. It was to remove the consequence of that decision that the clause was introduced here. I could give examples of the absurdities, but perhaps it would be better if I did that at the committee stage when the bill goes to the standing committee. It will be seen at once that the results flowing from that decision could be quite ridiculous and quite absurd.
The other clause of the bill seeks to amend Section 17 of the act. Section 17 of the Parole Act was amended by the Criminal Law Amendment Act of last year. The purpose of the amendment was to make clear in the statute that the term of imprisonment that a parole inmate must serve, whose parole has been forfeited by virtue of being convicted of an indictable offence, is a single term of imprisonment commencing on the date when the sentence for the indictable offence was imposed. It was also desirable to make it clear that the period of time for which the inmate was committed as the result of the forfeiture of parole included all the remission that had been granted to him. This amendment did not involve any change in policy but resolved any doubt that existed in respect of the practice that had been followed.
Section 13 of the Parole Act also has a retroactive aspect. The retroactive aspect of the amended section 13, when read together with section 17 of the act, results in inmates

not being credited with time spent in confinement in certain cases. This may occur when the forfeiture of parole follows a period during which the inmate has been confined under the Parole Act as a result of the suspension or revocation of his parole. It has also resulted, in rare cases, in inmates being credited with time towards the completion of their sentence during a period in which they were at large. These results were not intended and it is to correct these irregularities affecting a certain limited number of inmates that the amendment is sought for the purpose of clarifying the difficulties in that respect.
I think there is nothing more than I can usefully say at this stage in the debate because the amending bill does not raise any new matter of policy or principle. It merely seeks to clarify what was thought to be the law in the statute.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the minister for outlining the necessary amendments. I feel sure that he will not mind my saying that he will no doubt be in conversation with the members of the Parole Board on this matter.


George James McIlraith: Yes, that is right.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I am confident that the National Parole Board will do an excellent job in this field. Its chairman is Mr. T. G. Street, Q.C., and the members are Messrs. A. Therrien, C. Bouchard, W. R. Outerbridge, C. R. McWilliam, B. K. Stevenson, G. A. Tremblay, M. Maccagno and Miss M. L. Lynch. Anyone who has worked in this field knows what a tremendous job the National Parole Board has done.
The minister has outlined the amendments to be introduced to the parole system in Canada. Although the bill does not deal with the provincial parole system, it relates to matters affecting the federal jurisdiction. May I again say that we on this side of the House, and I am sure all hon. members here, have absolute confidence in the Parole Board and applaud it for the excellent job it is doing. Of particular difficulty are cases which relate to the use of drugs. That brings me to my next point, Mr. Speaker, and I intend to be brief today. I hope the bill is read the second time today.


Mr. Gilbert:: Then, the hon. member had better sit down.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I will ignore what the hon. member has said. To revert to my former trend of thought, Mr. Speaker, I strongly
February 27, 1970

recommend that all young men and women under 21 years of age who have been convicted in Canada of non-medical drug charges should be immediately placed-and of course this is at the discretion of the Parole Board- on daily parole so that they can attend the high schools, vocational training schools, or universities and be directly under supervision. There are supervisory facilities in our society. The aim of such supervision should be to make certain that these young people are rehabilitated.
May I refer briefly to the case of a young man from Prince Albert, I believe, who was convicted in Calgary of a certain offence. Actually, it involved drugs. I raised the matter, as the minister knows, in the House some weeks ago. It involves several young people who were sentenced to varying terms of between two and five years after being convicted under the Food and Drugs Act and the Narcotic Control Act, I believe. On appeal, the Court of Appeal reduced these sentences to two years less a day and set out terms and conditions which trial judges ought to follow. Unfortunately, the young man I am talking about exercised his right under the Criminal Code and elected trial before the magistrate, pleaded guilty before the magistrate and was sentenced to three years in prison. The problem is, as the Parole Board and the minister well know, that young people who have been sentenced are placed in our penitentiaries and remain there until they have signed a waiver of appeal.
These young people remain in penitentiaries, whereas they ought to go to some rehabilitation centre like the institution at Drumheller, in the riding of Palliser, where they could obtain schooling and be rehabilitated. Certainly, their conditions of incarceration there would be much better. Frankly, in this day and age, the number of times the earth orbits the moon should not determine the length of a sentence of young people who have been convicted of drug offences. I ask the minister to bring to the attention of the Parole Board, which has power in this field, the plight of those young people who must spend months in a penitentiary if a waiver of appeal is not signed. How can one rehabilitate our young people in surroundings like those?
The case of the young man from Prince Albert who was sentenced in Calgary involves an injustice, because the Court of Appeal reduced the sentences of those who had been tried in a higher court but he, 21701-54J
Parole Act
having pleaded guilty, was not so fortunate. I have a letter from his mother which reads:
[DOT] (12:40 p.m.)
Sir:
I wish to thank you for your reply and hope this is sufficient as it is from memory because it costs money for detailed statements of me and my trial.
I pause there for a moment. Here is a boy who has no means. Economic disparity leads to judicial disparity or justice with disparity. We are talking bout this commission that is being set up for reform of the Criminal Code. One of the great problems is implementation of the law. We do not seem to have come to grips with it in my lifetime. The letter continues:
I was sentenced October 24, 1969 on three charges of selling marijuana (weed) which totalled to the sum of 15 dime bags or less than $100. Having had no previous jail terms and don't have any record to speak of, I had quit dealing and had arranged to go back to school. I feel I wasn't a great threat to people and feel that the R.C.M.P. should have the same feelings.
He was hoping they would feel for him, at least.
The fact that I gave myself up and while doing so had to almost persuade the police in Kingston that I was wanted. My trial was ridiculous and lasted about three minutes.
He got a year for every minute of justice that was poured out in the magistrate's court in the city of Calgary.
They speak of me being immoral, while after that trial they should have a good look at their court and the people handing out punishment.
I am not going to get into any contentious position by criticizing the magistrate's court or the high court. I am merely reading from a letter of a desperate young man. This is merely an example of young people who are incarcerated in our penitentiaries. We are doing nothing about it.


George James McIlraith: We are doing a great deal about it.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: We are doing very little about this. I know the minister's attitude, and I ask him to bear with me. I hope the minister will be so sympathetic that he will do something for this young man. I hope he will appoint a counsel to ask the court of appeal in Alberta for leave to appeal because the time has expired. This young man has suffered an injustice. Other people were sentenced to less than two years, and he was sentenced to three.


Mr. Bigg:: That's because he has no money.

February 27, 1970
Parole Act


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: My good friend knows the situation. He was a member of the RCMP for a number of years. This young man was not only broke financially but broke before justice. The minister will say that we have legal aid programs. I do not want to be critical of my own profession, but we know the top legal mouthpieces do not get appointed on these cases. The letter continues:
If you wish you could probably see my transcript at the court. I have no money to buy them.
This is another matter. When a young man wants to appeal, he has to obtain a transcript. Here is an anomaly: under the Criminal Code of Canada a certain amount of money is set out for the cost of transcript, but the court reporters charge a different rate. The appellant requires the transcript to go to the court of appeal. I have seen this in various courts. I appeared in the courts of appeal in Saskatchewan and Alberta. The chief justices in those courts are absolutely right when they say that, without a transcript, they cannot make a decision on the facts. It is not the chief justice, or the judges, who sit with him, who make the decision as to how they receive that transcript. If a man is broke he must apply to either the Solicitor General (Mr. Mcllxaith) the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) or the provincial Attorney General. The letter continues:
There is a load going to Drumheller this week.
He means a group is going to be transferred. That is his language.
The second of which I have missed and feel that they have no great reason for not sending me other than the fact that they told me I was pending an appeal in regard to a letter to the Minister of Justice.
This young person wrote a letter to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner). I received only one letter from him. It took quite a while to clear the red tape to get that letter. He either wrote the Minister of Justice, the Attorney General or the Solicitor General.


George James McIlraith: He didn't write me.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: While the decision is pending, this boy is waiting in the penitentiary. His friends are having their sentences cut or are out on rehabilitation programs. I congratulate the Parole Board of Canada for setting up these programs. They have done a wonderful job in that regard. They are often criticized-I don't know whether by a quiet minority or majority-for being too soft with these people, but I am convinced that no one who has served time in a penitentiary ever

came out of that institution a better citizen. You might ask me what to do with him. I know what I would do. I would set up rehabilitation centres. If we can afford a new cultural program for the CBC to be initiated in 1972, surely we can afford to have that kind of justice for the greatest resource of all. Living is the basis of culture, a total man's experience. This is an experience. This is what culture is about.
I have reason to feel that they are just using this to keep me here as the people in Drumheller don't wish to have people there as I was told that this was just a letter and was irrelevant. Anyway I have written a follow up letter to him and asked for an answer one way or another about my appeal.
This boy is locked up in the penitentiary. There are no visitors and he has received no replies. He is entitled to one letter a month or once every two weeks. I am not sure of that regulation. I have not checked it. It used to be one letter a month. He is waiting.
If he answers me, then they will have to tell me the reason why when classified as medium security they are holding me in a maximum pen when there is really, I feel, nothing here I can do to help myself. I hope this is sufficient. Thank you.
This letter is signed by young Barr. His mother wrote me a letter, to which I replied on January 23, 1970 as follows:
I have written to your son asking him for details concerning his sentence and the charges laid against him.
As soon as I receive a reply I will have enquiries made to see if there is anything I can do to be of help.
The mother then contacted me by phone and I wrote to the boy as follows:
Your mother and father of 31 B. Normandy Crescent, Kingston, contacted me in reference to your conviction.
I would appreciate a detailed statement of the charges upon which you were convicted; statement of the facts, and whether there is any consideration to be given you in reference to the new system of parole whereby you would be permitted to work in the day time and return each night to custody.
It occurs to me that in Prince Albert this would not be possible but if you were moved to Drumheller then I think some negotiations in this regard would be more feasible.
When we talk about parole it sounds wonderful, but these things are happening. I do not know the percentages. We cannot bury our heads in the sand. Whether we like it or not, we are living in a day when in some educational institutions as high as 50 or 60 per cent of the students have used drugs. Think of the tremendous psychological trauma that occurs when a young boy is given three
February 27, 1970

years. He has been sitting in the same classroom with other students who have done the same thing and perhaps still are, yet he is incarcerated in the loneliness of a penitentiary.
I am a reformer. I started out to be one as a lawyer and I am still one. This boy is having his case presented in the highest court of the land today, Parliament. Every one of us feel this way. We do not agree on economic matters with the members of the New Democratic Party, but there is one thing for which I give them credit, particularly their leader. When he was Premier of Saskatchewan he had a sense of humanity. You could not help but have some affection for him, even though you differed in philosophy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[DOT] (12:50 p.m.)


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The determination of
whether a man or a woman will be removed from a penitentiary to go to the new institution at Drumheller, planned and built by the former government, should not depend on whether an accused person has signed a waiver of appeal. Here again is a case of discrimination. The economic disparity means justice for one and injustice for another. I should like to see this bill go through. I think the amendment is necessary. It is recommended by the chairman and members of the Parole Board who are doing a tremendous job. Mr. Street has great vision. He is motivated to do the things we have been talking about here. If we in this institution give him the legislation, I have no doubt that these high public servants, with their ability to do their job, will function to bring about the kind of justice we would all of us like to see for our greatest resource of all-our youth.


John Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, last night a somewhat unusual event took place in this chamber. The Solicitor General (Mr. Mcllraith) received warm applause from all sides of the House. Usually a government spokesman receives warm applause only from the supporters of the government side. What took place last night indicates the affection and appreciation felt by hon. members for the efforts of the Solicitor General over the years in this Parliament. He has added greatly to the legislation. Some people say we might not have encountered the difficulties which prevailed with regard to rule 75C had the Solicitor General been dealing with this matter at the time. However, I shall not comment further on the point.
Parole Act
I should like the minister to add more diamonds to his crown. Before he retires I should like to see him bring forward legislation with regard to the annulment of criminal records. Yes, I know he has presented a bill which has been referred to committee, but the bill really does not go far enough. It is anaemic. I hope that by the time it comes out of the committee we shall have an effective measure.
I should like to see the minister bring forth legislation with regard to juvenile delinquency. When we note the wide disparity in jurisdiction across the country, I think we all agree it is time he did so. As a third effort, I should like to see the Solicitor General bring forth legislation to ensure a better and more effective parole system. Bill S-19 is really a housekeeping bill. The minister spoke only very briefly with regard to its contents and consequences. I would have liked the Solicitor General to bring forth a bill concerned entirely with the Parole Act. I thought he would have taken the initiative following the report of the Committee on Corrections which contained at least 50 pages on the inadequacy and shortcomings of the Parole Act and made specific recommendations which should be implemented so as to bring the legislation into line with modern requirements.
As the minister told us, the bill before us contains two main features. Concurrent and consecutive sentences are now to run from the dates on which the different sentences were imposed and not from the date upon which the first sentence was imposed. The second change makes clear which dates are to be taken into consideration when calculating the length of time a prisoner who has forfeited his parole must spend in prison, and the basis for calculating the amount of any remission to which he may be entitled. As the Solicitor General has stated, the first change follows a decision of the courts in which a judge ruled that time imposed for a subsequent offence committed by an accused should run from the date of the first conviction rather than from the date of the subsequent conviction. This change gives rise to certain problems. The provision relates to an offence which has been committed subsequent to a first conviction. The question which arises in my mind, and I hope the Solicitor General will think about it, is this: what happens with regard to an offence committed prior to the offence for which an accused has been sentenced?
The situation which arises very often in the courts, is this: a person is convicted of
4X80

February 27, 1970
Parole Act
one or two offences and is sentenced to a term in a penitentiary or in a reformatory. Then, before he gets to the reformatory or the penitentiary, other charges are preferred against him. He usually pleads guilty to the additional charges. A distinction must be made between offences in respect of which he has been charged, found guilty and sentenced, and offences committed prior to the offence on which he has been found guilty. The amendment before us relates only to offences for which an accused has been found guilty on charges which are laid subsequently. These are the main points, and I hope the minister will comment on them.
The second change concerns the length of time a person must serve when he has forfeited his parole. In 17(1) the amendment is set forth. It states:
When parole is forfeited by conviction for an indictable offence, the parole inmate shall undergo a term of imprisonment commencing when the sentence for the indictable offence is imposed, equal to the aggregate of-
And this is what I am concerned about
(a) the portion of the term to which he was sentenced that remained unexpired at the time his parole was granted, including any period of remission, including earned remission, then standing to his credit.
This indicates there are two types of remission. There is the statutory remission, which I understand amounts to one quarter of the sentence imposed, and then there is the earned remission which amounts to three days for every month of good behaviour. It is obvious from the amendment that the intention is to include in the term which a man must serve after the forfeiture of his parole not only the statutory remission but also the earned remission.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order; it being one o'clock I do now leave the chair until 2 p.m.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
John Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, prior to the one o'clock adjournment I was directing my remarks to the second change that the Solicitor General has requested in Bill S-19, namely that concerning the calculation of time once a person has had his parole forfeited. The burden of my remarks was that the Solicitor General has now included in the

calculation of this time the earned remission that the person was entitled to prior to release. I indicated that there are two types of remission: there is statutory remission, which is one quarter of the parolee's sentence; then there is earned remission, which is dependent upon good behaviour and amounts to three days per month.
According to the proposed new section, in calculating this time a person who has forfeited his parole will have the earned remission that is then standing to his credit added to the balance of his sentence, and it seemed to me that this was an unfair way of treating such person, even though he had forfeited his parole. It is much like a worker who works from Monday to Friday, and whose employer fires him on the Friday and tells him he is not entitled to wages from the Monday to the Friday.
That is analogous to what would happen here in the case of an inmate in a penitentiary who has earned remission for good behaviour. Because he has forfeited his parole and has been returned to prison, we are going to be vindictive and add to the balance of his term the remission days he earned while in prison. I understand his not being entitled to any earned remission while out on parole; but if the purpose of our parole system is to rehabilitate the prisoner, then under this change it seems to me he is being treated rather harshly, indeed to the point of our becoming vindictive.
Having set forth that objection to the second part of the bill, I should like to develop some ideas that touch on this problem of parole. At least 50 pages of the Ouimet comission report were devoted to the subject of parole. I should have liked the Solicitor General to introduce amendments to the Parole Act, amendments that are lacking in the present bill, to put Canada in the foreground in the treatment of parolees and in meeting the problems of parole.
At page 329 of the Ouimet commission report parole is defined in these words:
Parole Is a procedure whereby an inmate of a prison who is considered suitable may be released, at a time considered appropriate by a parole board, before the expiration of his sentence so he may serve the balance of his sentence at large in society but subject to stated conditions, under supervision, and subject to return to prison if he fails to comply with the conditions governing his release.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)
On the following page the commission states that really parole is a treatment-oriented correctional measure, not a sentence-cor-
February 27, 1970

recting method. It is stated that parole is designed as a logical step in the total correctional process and is designed particularly to assist the offender's re-integration into the community as a contributing and law-abiding citizen. Again, they say that at the same time, for the offender, parole is an opportunity and a test of self-control and ability to get along in the community. These remarks really indicate what parole is all about.
Like the previous speaker, I must give credit to the chairman of the Parole Board and his associates for the tremendous job they have done concerning the problem of parole. In fact Mr. Street has made many speeches across the country in which he set forth what has been done in this field and the success that has been obtained. He pointed out that by keeping a person in prison the maintenance cost of such a person is roughly $5,500 a year and that when a person is placed on parole the cost of the parole amounts to $750.
There has been a great deal of success in respect of persons who have been placed on parole. They have obtained work in the communities at salaries and wages which add to the gross national product of our country. During the discussion of his estimates, the Solicitor General (Mr. Mcllraith) provided the members of the committee with certain details concerning the population of the penitentiaries. These details indicate that 74 per cent of all inmates range between age 20 and age 40; 7 per cent range between age 15 and 20 and the balance is made up of persons over 40 years of age. This indicates the necessity for excellent parole provisions concerning people in the group between 20 and 40 years of age because of the number in this group, namely 74 per cent. I also note from the figures that in the year 1967 there were four persons in penitentiaries who were 15 years of age and 15 persons who were 16 years of age. Surely, we have reached the point where we are not sending persons who are 15 and 16 years of age to penitentiaries. This is one of the most dreadful things that could happen with regard to the treatment of young offenders.
In a return tabled in the House, the Solicitor General pointed out the number of federal parolees, the number of violations and the number of persons returned to custody in the period 1960 to 1967. Through the years there has been an increase in the number of paroles granted. In the year 1967 1,328 federal paroles were granted. Of that number, 328 parolees
Parole Act
violated their parole conditions. There were 243 parolees returned to custody. The 1967 figures indicate that of the 1,328 paroles granted roughly 25 per cent of the parolees were in violation of their terms of parole and roughly 20 per cent were returned to custody. On the face of it, this would appear to be a rather high percentage. It would seem that we should direct our attention to the reason these parolees violated their parole.
The Ouimet commission report indicated some of the conditions that are imposed on a parolee. The report states that these conditions are not unreasonable. The commission did not recommend any substantial changes in this regard. I would imagine that the changes suggested by the minister are changes which probably have been recommended by the chairman of the Parole Board, and possibly the Commissioner of Penitentiaries as well as some other officials. It would seem to me that the persons who are missing are the parolees themselves. I should like to make a suggestion to the Solicitor General on which I hope he will act. When this bill is referred to the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, I would suggest that the members of the committee visit some of the institutions in which federal inmates are confined and hear what some of these men have to say concerning the provisions, the effect and the operation of the Parole Act. I would recommend that the members of the committee visit Kingston Penitentiary, Dorchester, St. Vincent de Paul in Quebec and also a minimum security institution either at William Head or Springhill in order to obtain from the inmates information about the operation of the Parole Act. I am positive that to date the Solicitor General has not had representations from these people.
Two weeks ago I had the privilege of sitting with the Transport Committee in Toronto when it studied ways to improve the ground transportation at the airport and other places in Toronto because of the difficulties which obtained at the airport in respect of taxi service. At those meetings, the Committee on Transport heard many taxi drivers set forth their views concerning the problems at the airport. Many recommendations were made with regard to improvement. I must give the hon. member for LaSalle (Mr. Lessard), the chairman of that committee, full credit for his patience with and encouragement to the taxi drivers and others who set forth their views. If the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs were to make trips to certain institutions, and


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweaiher@Fundy-Royal: I do not want to delay this bill very long. The hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert) reminded us that parole is a treatment 
oriented concept. I think that he and others who have taken part in this debate have quite properly congratulated the board on the excellent program it has developed. I submit that the board would be the first to recognize that it tries to solve only part, admittedly the core part, of the total problem. I am thinking now of a young parolee who was recently released from Dorchester and is facing the really frightening prospect of getting himself a job and entering into the mainstream of life in the city of Toronto. There are many examples of this, and the officers of the board are exceptionally helpful.
But there are other aspects to this problem. Some of them are dealt with very effectively by the St. Leonard's Society, the halfway houses. Then, of course there are the Elizabeth Fry and John Howard Societies which obtain some funding from the government of Canada. I am thinking of the important links between the parolee and his integration into the community, and the frustration that he experiences in the community, despite the best Parole Act in the world, unless the concept is understood by a wide segment of the community. Otherwise, frustration and recidivism are bound to occur.
At Christmas time I had an opportunity to see something of the very close and effective work that the Canada manpower centres do in this field of service. I must admit that the manpower officer in the city of Saint John asked me to put his point of view to the minister, and this is a pretty good opportunity to do so. He feels that it is exceedingly important that the penitentiary service make available to manpower centres as much information as possible at the time when people can be expected to be released on parole.
In many parts of our country manpower officials have a pretty tough job, particularly where there is high unemployment. They have an added difficulty if the penitentiary service does not make available fact sheets. I forget the actual name of the form. We live in a world of forms and I cannot keep them all straight. But there is a sort of information sheet available on each person who is about to be paroled. So, I hope the minister and his officials will take this as a friendly and instructive criticism and suggestion that this information be made readily available to the manpower centres well in advance of intended parole. I think it happens in many cases now, but 1 am told by manpower officials that it is happening not as often as it should.
February 27, 1970

However, I understand that manpower officials quite properly visit the various institutions and, by way of interviews, receive some information on the people eligible for parole. I think this is a worthy objective.
I think that the chairman and members of the board are too modest about speaking about the achievements of the board since its inception. I know that a good many of the members of the board speak out on the subject, but I often wonder why they only preach to the converted. In other words, they often speak to professional people or people trained in the field, and I would make a plea for a stepped up series of statements or articles in the popular press about the board. I make no apology for this. I think that the story could be told in a rather dramatic form, not ladled on so to speak, but just told in some of the so-called popular magazines, both the church and the secular magazines of our country. Helpful as it is to have members of the board on the circuit, in my opinion nothing would be better than to have articles in the Weekend magazine, and other such magazines seen by a great number of Canadians, so that the public can understand that they have an extremely important role to play in the whole rehabilitation program.
We can have the most superbly drafted laws, but if there is no community acceptance of the concept, and the board and the minister are perfectly entitled to tell their story, then frustration will ensue. I hope to find in the months ahead a spate of articles on this subject, and I hope the minister will initiate them in the near future.
I want to make one other observation regarding the rather new phenomenon of the meetings of our judges. I know this is a delicate constitutional area, but I think that sometimes we are so delicate about the constitution that we resist some obvious initiatives. I think it has been very valuable that the judges, the sentencing officers of our system, have been having a good many more meetings on the problem of uniformity, in so far as there can be uniformity in a world as plural as ours. But this is an important departure and I hope it is followed up. I suspect- and I just voice this because the suspicion alarms me-that some magistrates who have not been gripped by the concept of parole, are imposing very substantial sentences, much more lengthy than they have before the parole system came in, and are turning over the problem to the board. I think this is not a good thing.
Parole Act
I noticed the other day, for instance, that in my own province a very young offender received 14 years for an infraction of the narcotics act. Obviously, there is an obligation, and an early one, on the parole board to rectify this sentence. But I would hope that judges, not only at the Supreme and Superior court level but on the magistrates level, across the country will step up the number of opportunities for getting together and discussing the whole matter of sentencing.
[DOT] (2:30 p.m.)
The drug problem is upon us whether we like it or not, and I suspect that long sentences, brutally long sentences, are going to have no appreciable effect on what is obviously the most serious social problem in the field of law that we have facing us today.
I congratulate the minister, and I am particularly happy to have an opportunity in public to say what many of us have found since coming to parliament, that the work of the parole board is worthy of our commendation and support.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to learn that something has happened since I last had an interest in the parole board. I heard nearly everyone say what a wonderful job they are doing. For a long time I was of the opinion they were doing a lousy job, so I am very pleased if this is correct.
Mr. Fair weather: It is correct.


William Arnold Peters: The hon. member says it is correct. I have just looked at the figures given in a return tabled in the House, and I find that the number of prisoners in Canada has gone down in the last couple of years, particularly in 1968, which is a worthwhile thing. However, we find that in 1960, out of an inmate population of 6,344 at that time, there were granted 1,192 federal paroles. But you will note, if you look at the years I was particularly interested in here, 1962, 1963, and 1964, that the paroles were down as low as 600 out of a prison population in 1963 of 7,219. The reason for that, Mr. Speaker, was that public opinion at that time was highly aroused by two particular cases.
I think the board has shown a very slow reaction to what obviously should have been the principles applied to parole. I note that even in 1967, out of a prison population of 7,185, we still only had 1,300 paroles. I am not objecting to 1,300. I think that is pretty good.

February 27, 1970
Parole Act
There is another interesting tact, Mr. Speaker. If you look at the number of paroles that were granted and the number of parolees returned to custody, you will find the number has not varied greatly. In 1963, when we only granted 633 paroles, there were 185 returned to custody. In 1967, when we granted 1,328 paroles, there were only 243 that were returned.


George James McIlraith: I wonder if the hon. member would permit a question.


William Arnold Peters: Certainly.


George James McIlraith: Is he aware that the figure he is using of those returned to prison is of all the paroles granted in that year, and the first figure he has given is only the paroles of persons in federal institutions? The hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert) made the same error in reading the figures.


William Arnold Peters: This is the Solicitor General's own table, and he does not draw that distinction. However, it does not change the position. All I am interested in is the relationship. I was pointing out that, although we have more than doubled the number of paroles, the number of persons that were returned to custody increased by less than 20 per cent. In other words, if we again doubled the number of paroles we granted, we would probably reduce that figure for those returned to prison to 10 per cent. The number apparently will be small, but this number will represent the hard core of recidivists who will always remain. If we increase the number of paroles, we do not necessarily increase the number of recidivists. So, I think the parole board has been overly cautious. I certainly could not congratulate them on the number of paroles they have granted because I don't think they have been excessive. I think the number should have been much greater, taking into account the results accomplished.
There is one other point I would like to make. I have not been around penitentiaries much the last year or two, but in previous years, I heard complaints from all prisoners, and this is one of the reasons I support very strongly the position taken by the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert). The prisoners themselves will give you a pretty good indication why parole is difficult, why they are dissatified with parole, and in many cases why parole does not produce the results we, the general public, want that parole to produce. A lot of the dissatisfaction comes from the fact that the inmates don't know the
parole board. They have never had an opportunity of meeting them. Then, as soon as the parole board considers all the factors involved, their recommendation is supposed to carry some weight with the people in the administrative field-


George James McIlraith: Would the hon. member permit another question?


William Arnold Peters: Sure.


George James McIlraith: Is he aware the parole board now conducts its hearings in the penal institutions?


William Arnold Peters: Again, Mr. Speaker, it is very hard to keep up. I said I have not visited the penitentiaries for two years, but I am reading from the report of the Canadian Committee on Corrections, which was published in 1969 over the minister's signature. One of the points they make is, "the Committee therefore recommends that the parole board be composed of representatives from different disciplines." The Committee goes on to say that the parole board should meet in the penitentiaries.


George James McIlraith: That recommendation has long since been put into operation.


William Arnold Peters: This book has only been out two weeks. I grant you the only way to find out anything about corrections is to go to the penitentiaries and investigate. This is a new book. I have not had time to read it yet. It just came to our attention two weeks ago, and now the minister says it is outdated. Why the heck did you put it out if it is out of date?


George James McIlraith: You have had it six months.


William Arnold Peters: You have had it six months, but Members of Parliament have not. It only came to our attention within the past two weeks. If the minister says the parole board now does visit penitentiaries, then I think that solves some of the problem. I have heard many complaints from prisoners to the effect the board makes the decision on the basis of evidence which, standing alone, would not warrant their getting parole. They said that if they were able to explain more of the factors it would help them.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
One of the factors which the board takes into consideration, and it must, is the environment into which a prisoner will be

February 27, 1970

released. In many cases the type of environment you read about on paper is not necessarily the type of environment to which the prisoner will be returning. I am two years out of date, Mr. Speaker, because I have not discussed this matter at any great length with prisoners. However, I was very impressed with the charge made by prisoners, particularly in Kingston and St. Vincent de Paul, that the administrative officers with whom they deal are often not in a position to tell them why they failed to get parole or to give them any advice to help meet new criteria. Probably more important is the fact that neither the correction officers nor the inmates were too familiar with the decision taken by the board nor the grounds for it.
At that time I heard a number of prisoners state that they were not going to apply for parole; they just were not interested any more. I still think, Mr. Speaker, that if we had a good parole system in Canada we would have correction officers in the penitentiaries advanced enough in their role to know when a prisoner should be released.
I remember a prisoner who is in the news today, and we will probably hear more of him, whose mental attitude improved enormously when certain changes that affected him took place in the penitentiary. That was the time for parole, the time his correction officer should have recommended parole, should have insisted that the parole board take a look at the situation. The parole board was interested in giving him parole a year or so later but he was no longer interested. He felt discriminated against and persecuted and felt that he had to clear his name. In my opinion when he was released he was in a much worse mental state and not as able to take advantage of rehabilitation as he would have been at the earlier date. I discussed this case with the deputy warden, who was also of the opinion that the time had arrived for this person to be released. The parole board still thinks a little like the judges-he has not been punished enough, enough time has not gone by.
Surely, anyone who is interested in parole or correction should act on the proposition that when a person's mental condition will allow him to be absorbed into society without resentment or difficulty to that society, that is the time he should be released. As the member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) said, judgments vary in the extreme. They vary on a regional basis and on a number of other factors. In my own area we used to
Parole Act
have a judge who suffered from ulcers and the sentences varied depending upon his medical condition on a particular day. The parole board, acting on behalf of Parliament and on behalf of society, should be able to make the decision on when a person can be accepted back into society.
If we only wanted to obtain free labour for the state, Mr. Speaker, we would put prisoners in the chain gang, as is done in Tennessee. We do not believe in that any more. Indeed, I do not think that Canada has ever been involved with that type of restitution, and I think most people would agree that we should not be involved in it. Today, many businessmen look at this figure of $5,000 or $6,000, which is the amount required to keep a prisoner in jail and decide, "My taxes are paying for it so I am going to do something about it. Send me some of these people and I will pay them, then I won't have to pay so much in taxes."
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, before we get carried away, that the parole board has not been that helpful or generous. They waited a long time, after those two accidents following their decisions of 1963-1964 to get back to where they were in the early 60s. I suggest there is still a considerable distance to go. I hope that the changes the minister contemplates in this bill will be put into effect. He says he has already started, but admits he is six months behind the report. My congratulations to him and to those people in the institutions who have made many changes.
I can remember going to the St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary when the attitude of the guards and the prisoners was a disgrace. However, the last time I visited it, the atmosphere was totally different and improved. Great strides have been made in actual physical changes, but much more was being achieved through the change of attitude. A lot of this is due to our improved ability to train guards for these institutions.
We are plagued today, Mr. Speaker, with many problems in the penitentiary system and in the parole system that have no relationship to either of these bodies but stem from our lack of ability to keep abreast of social development in this country, as suggested by the hon. member for Broadview. Without changing the laws, we are making decisions about things that carry extreme penalties, such as the use of marijuana, which has become acceptable to a large segment of the population. In my opinion, no one in this House believes that a user of marijuana

February 27, 1970
Parole Act
should receive a five-year prison term as punishment. We are almost as tar behind as we were in the early days of prohibition.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Or when they hanged people for stealing a sheep.


William Arnold Peters: That is right; or arresting a person for stealing food. It seems to me our society must change. I do not ask the parole board to make the decision for us, and I do not make the penitentiary staff responsible for the decision. I think we are closer to the judiciary than some of the other bodies and probably could have some influence on their decisions, which I think should better reflect public opinion.
On a number of occasions I have heard lawyers say, "If you have a bad law enforce it and somebody will change it." This may be so, and it may be the way to get changes, but it is very hard on some of our young people who feel the brunt of it. This must be a problem for the parole board and it is probably reflected in these figures, which are not broken down. We can put a young person in jail for five years for using marijuana, which is a non-habit forming drug. We can release him three days later and he is no more apt to take the drug then than six months later. No doubt there is a psychological problem as well as sociological problems involved, but there is no medical problem involved with this drug. Parole could take place two or three days after he goes to jail with almost as good a chance of success as five years later.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
I am sure the parole board is not taking this fact into consideration and I really do not expect them to because of the hue and cry that would be heard from the judiciary. May I refer to something the Parole Board may not have considered. Would it not be a good idea to let out on parole all those people who are not dangerous and who would not benefit from being incarcerated but who would benefit if they were sent to university or some educational institution which could change their social attitudes? I think statistics will bear me out when I say that if you were to let almost all the prisoners out of penitentiary in this way you would not increase significantly the numbers who return to penitentiary a second, third or fourth time. It has been suggested that if you doubled the number you released on parole you would only increase by 10 per cent those who go back to prison a

second time. If you were to let out still more prisoners, very few of them, I submit, would become second or third offenders. This way of reforming our penitentiary system might be good. After all, the system we now have has not worked too well.
I have made these comments because, as the hon. member for Broadview said, the committee will learn much from talking to prisoners. On one occasion we interviewed 14 prisoners in St. Vincent de Paul who, in the opinion of prison authorities, were the most hardened criminals there, the prisoners who were serving the longest terms. When we questioned them we expected to hear them say that the newly appointed warden was not a good man. Yet in all cases, without exception, they did not make strong statements against the warden of the penitentiary but said instead that he had not been there long enough to change some of the bad conditions which had existed under the previous warden. They were all pleased the new warden had stopped the beatings which had taken place previously, that he had been influential in providing better food for the prisoners and had heeded what the correctional officers had said about prisoners in their reports to the warden.
Many prisoners like these will tell you they do not want parole. Many of them will not accept it. After all, it is no use paroling a prisoner who will pay no attention to the conditions of parole. Paroling such prisoners may not be of advantage to society. I suggest that if the committee were to talk to some of these prisoners it would be surprised at the forthrightness and honesty of the answers given. The opinions the prisoners have of themselves often coincide with the opinions of the John Howard Society, other rehabilitation agencies and the courts. I say this because it is clear that changes can be made in the system and because the minister, as I know, is interested in bringing in some real changes.
We all want to bring up to date our parole system and our penal system, while at the same time doing our best to provide for the hard core criminals who, for one reason or another, will always be with us. The least we can do is try to reduce their numbers to the very minimum by the use of parole. It is my opinion that the Parole board is doing a better job now than it has done for some time. I sincerely hope it will continue doing good work and take a few chances in paroling prisoners. The rewards will be great. It ought
February 27, 1970

to take chances in paroling prisoners, especially where the rewards are likely to be greater than average. Alter all, some of the board's members have been re-appointed over long periods of time and they should not be too scared to take chances in the interest of a better, more modern and more up to date penal system.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Mr. Speaker, the paroling of prisoners is a very up-to-date and progressive move and for these reforms I wish to congratulate the department concerned. However, I do not want the minister or the department to think that this means the millenium has come in this field. So long as we have large numbers of people in our penal institutions and many failures in parole, much work remains to be done.
I wish to talk about a favourite subject, that of prevention. This is something the parole board thinks about a great deal. All those who interview young people who have run afoul of the law, and I am thinking of the John Howard Society, the Elizabeth Fry Society and members of the parole board, are impressed not by how different these young people are but how shockingly normal they are. I will confine my remarks in the main to young people. I think the emphasis ought to be on prevention, because once they have been arrested it is almost too late. Mr. Speaker, 90 per cent of our crime comes from 10 per cent of our population. Most of the trouble results from the young peoples' insecurity in formative years.
The trouble arises because of broken homes and opportunities of fitting into our economic society, which is still a jungle, being missed. I think all those involved in parole and most law enforcement officers in Canada will tell you that most young people who run into serious trouble with the law have had little guidance. The guidance should begin of course with the mother in the home, and if it is not given there it should be given at school. Also, people involved in parole will tell you that many young law breakers are school dropouts. Therefore, these young people ought to be guided and encouraged at school. Teachers should not always be looking at the bright students in class and saying, "Here is a bright student; I have a potential Rhodes scholar in my class." They should be paying attention to the potential dropouts, to the so-called submerged 10 per cent of our students, and encouraging them to learn more. Perhaps, by staying after five o'clock at night or on Saturdays the teachers could keep in touch
Parole Act
with those students from less well-off homes to make sure they will not run afoul of the law.
By far the greatest number of offences in Canada today are offences against property. They are offences like petty stealing, the borrowing of the other boy's bicycle without his permission-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Or robbing the bank.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: The end result is bank robbery, but that is not where it starts. By the time you get to the stage of bank robbery you have usually committed a long series of petty theft, break and enter, hanging around street corners, and are incapable of earning a so-called honest living. I agree with other hon. members who have suggested the Parole Board should embark upon an educational program for these young people before they get off on the wrong track.
A great responsibility is on the peace officer when he arrests a young person, because he is the first contact with the law. If he uses physical violence unnecessarily in the arrest because he is not getting the information required for a successful prosecution, he drives that young person, psychologically at least, into the arms of the criminal world. The young offender immediately feels buddy-buddy with all those who have been locked up under similar circumstances. Whether or not he is guilty of a serious crime such as stealing someone's property or committing an offence against society, he is from the start lined up on the wrong side of society. A peace officer must not use rough or brutal treatment because he may be the first friend the young fellow has had. He should be firmly treated, but not kicked and pushed down.
I like to think that the young people who appear in magistrate's court are not being herded off to jail but are being firmly and sensibly counselled. I like to think the forces of society are on their side, and they should know those forces are on their side. They should feel, by the way they are talked to and treated, that they are wrong and the court is right. I speak with some experience in this regard.
We should set up police colleges for our policemen. We cannot do very much with our young people until they come in contact with the law. We can do something with the police officers in whose custody these people are until they appear before the magistrate. The RCMP already has such a police college.

February 27. 1970
Parole Act
Every person who wears a badge of the law and who has the right to lay his hands on your child or any member of society should attend a police college and learn how to deal with these problems.
I suggest, also, that the magistrates should attend regular classes because most offences under our criminal law are dealt with by magistrates. Very often their training is not equal to the task. They would be the first to admit this. I do not suggest that only fully trained men in the legal profession should be magistrates-quite the contrary. But magistrates should know the rudiments of the law which they are enforcing. They should attend a college and receive training from knowledgeable men of their profession so they can dispense justice in a way that will help more young offenders to return to being productive members of society.
I am not going to say anything about the need for more judges and the bottleneck in the higher courts. Certainly in the magistrate's court today there is a great deal of delay. When young people are arrested they should be brought to court without delay. There is no need to detain a person two or three days without benefit of his family or the security of his home, when all he have done is be in the company of people who are suspected of doing something wrong. We need more scientifically trained policemen and magistrates.
Before the luncheon adjournment we were told about a young lad who was sentenced to a year in jail for every minute he was in court. I know from my own experience this often happens. It is wrong. There should be much more investigation into the background of young offenders. If we are going to take three years of a young man's life and keep him behind bars, we can afford to give him all the investigation necessary to find out how he got into that frame of mind, whether he had been trafficking in marijuana, stolen someone's bicycle or broken into a store. If this is not done, we are wasting the greatest natural resource we have in Canada-the future of our young people. Fifty years of productive life may go down the drain if we hastily dispose of the matter merely because a young person pleads guilty.
I suggest any person under 18 years of age who pleads guilty in Canada today is an idiot. If a young person does this without explaining his psychological, home and economic background, it should be proof enough-to put it in lawyers' language-that he is non

compos mentis. It might be a good idea if no one under the age of 21 was allowed to plead guilty. They should be presumed innocent until the Crown proves them guilty and they are put behind stone walls and iron bars for perhaps three of their most productive years.
A young person is put behind bars for only two reasons, to better him and protect society. When we put him in jail we should be sure that we have a program that will help him and society. I agree with those who say it does a man no good to spend three or five years in jail. I do not think people are completely sane who cold-bloodedly declare open war against society, say they are no longer going to work honestly, are going to rob banks, stick guns in the ribs of people, beat them over the head and snatch purses. However, if these people are under 21 years of age we should be very leary about entertaining a plea of guilty and accepting the responsibility of taking away three years of their liberty unless we know what they are, who they are, and why they did it.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
If our excuse is that we cannot afford to set up the proper courts to listen, or that we do not have the time, we cannot say we are in any better position than they are; we are showing that we are so mean and self-centred in connection with providing the proper type of courts that we can no longer pretend to be meting out justice. Parole then becomes a farce, because it is no use putting a boy on parole after he has been in jail for three years, under present circumstances, particularly if he should not have been there in the first place.
It would call for a great effort on the part of the John Howard Society, or the Elizabeth Fry Society if the prisoner happened to be a woman, to explain that society was right all the time. We should deal with our young people with a sense of understanding, taking advantage of the knowledge available through modern psychology, looking carefully at the medical evidence and the economic opportunity available-the chance to get a job in the situation in which the person accused of committing an offence found himself.
What often happens is that a boy will say he was educated only up to grade three and left school in trying circumstances because his home was broken up. Since then he had been trying to earn his own living in some ghetto. Then we ask him: Why do you not have the money to hire a good lawyer and
February 27, 1970

pay for the expensive red tape which the bureaucrats demand? He cannot have his case reheard because it costs 25 cents a word to have the evidence typed out. He does not have 25 cents; if he had, he would not have been involved in petty theft, petty marijuana trafficking or an offence of that kind which looks very bad until you know the background.
He might have been smoking marijuana because he could not stand the strain. I do not say he should be allowed to smoke marijuana, but if society is to become believable in the eyes of these young people we must be as pure as Caesar's wife; we must show them that it is not for lack of willingness on our part to put up the money that we are locking them in jail without a proper hearing or rehearing.
I know whereof I speak, because as a peace officer I had to deal with such people. I listened to them, I talked to them through the bars, and sometimes I did not know what to do because there were no financial resources available to give them the kind of help which would at least have left them satisfied in their minds. I was careful to treat them as human beings while they were in my charge, by seeing they were properly fed and spoken to and not bullied, cajoled or threatened into making confessions in one form or another. They have written to me from jail saying they did not know there was no such thing as British justice until they landed in jail. That is a sad commentary on our much vaunted legal and fair society.
This is the problem we face. I am afraid the Parole Board is often working against heavy odds when after four or five years of injustice it tries to do something the need for which might well have been avoided in the first place. Then again, the harm was doubly exaggerated by the kind of treatment these boys received after they fell into the toils of the law.
If hon. members do not believe this is true, I challenge them to visit our places of confinement. In most cases the warden would be very pleased to have them go there. When these boys are interviewed, over and over again they tell the same story. They are not at all convinced that they were wrong. Again, I am not soft: I would not be soft after 23 years of the kind of life I have led. But I know there is much truth in what they have to say and I know that if these roadblocks are removed there is a possibility that it will be seen they have not had a fair deal.
Parole Act
In many cases it will be found that somewhere along the line a little humanity, a little help, a little readiness to listen may change their whole attitude. Even hardened criminals have turned from a lifetime of crime and become productive members of society because they found some person, possibly a guard or a warden, who treated them like a human being, or even because in the last days of their confinement they met a representative of the John Howard Society or a member of the Parole Board who was ready to help them on the road back. This is why I congratulate the Parole Board and those who are working so hard at the retrieving end. It is also why I ask hon. members to bear with me for a few minutes while I ask whether there is not more we can do on the preventive side.
Twenty years ago the Mounted Police had a forward-looking program called the Youth and Police Program. I believe it was cancelled in the name of economy. This is not the first time I have stood in this House and said that when this program was undertaken by wellmeaning members of the Mounted Police, juvenile delinquency, which was at the root of the matter, dropped dramatically. When the young people of any community learn to-yes, I will use the word-love the policeman, there is no problem of juvenile delinquency on anything like the scale to which we are accustomed. When they see a police car, no tongues go out, there are no hisses or catcalls.
The cost of these programs to the Canadian public was negligible; however, the results not only in terms of broken glass saved but broken lives and broken careers mended was beyond calculation. The story of what happened in one small town in New Brunswick is well known and it is on record. Events there bear me out. The authorities closed the regular sittings of the juvenile court because one young man set up a boxing class. How much did it cost to get a few boxing-gloves donated by well-disposed citizens? How much did it cost to set up a few ropes in the curling rink when it was not in use and get these young men trying to punch each other on the nose under the Marquis of Queensbury rules, instead of meeting in some back alley, smoking marijuana and practicing mayhem?
There will always be hard-core prisoners. Some of the prisoners in the penitentiaries speak of the old alma mater. They wear the old school tie. They have their homo clubs going. They think they are running the penitentiary according to their own ideas. These

February 27, 1970
Parole Act
are no places to send any unhardened criminals, not even for 24 hours. We need new physical plant. I realize it is difficult for the minister to obtain the appropriations necessary for this purpose. I am sure he raises this matter and argues with his colleagues about it. But we must have additional plant; there must be an opportunity to segregate prisoners.
I know the minister and those responsible for law enforcement understand this well and are doing everything they can. We need more personnel of the right kind. We need more prison psychologists and doctors who can help in this regard. We also need a great deal more understanding on the part of the public. We have to reach the point at which we do not think that because a young man is put in jail he should no longer be allowed to visit his girl friend or receive more than one letter in two weeks, or whatever the period may be. I think he should be allowed to write all the right kind of letters he can. He must keep in contact with the decent side of society.
We should no longer punish married people by imposing long sentences of imprisonment in circumstances in which the woman is expected to live alone, apart from her husband, for a period which may be as long as ten years. What are we doing to her, perhaps an innocent victim of a terrible situation? Do any within the sound of my voice, or do any who may read what I have to say, think for one minute that in circumstances like that, after seven or eight years a person could be readily rehabilitated into normal society?
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
Even if you are able to control yourself with prayer and meditation, what kind of strain is put on the family never to see the father or the mother, or to have family communication of any kind? I say a long period is not required. These offences occur when the family is already shaken, and nothing is accomplished by this sort of inhuman segregation of members of families by imposing long terms of imprisonment. If the real aim of prison is to return a man to a productive society, not only for personal reasons but on the ground of making him a civilized human being once more, I suggest we should do away with the sort of sadistic cruelty that is a hangover of the dark days of the Middle Ages.
The same is true of our young people. Take the case of a young man who has committed what may be a minor crime, at least in the

criminal sense. We are going to deprive him of social contact with the young lady of his choice. No longer will he be able to talk to her, hold her hand or pass the time of day, at least not more than once a month. This isolation does him irreparable harm. The fact that a young man of normal courage and instinct is deprived of his liberty should be shock enough; certainly it lets him know we no longer approve of the conduct for which he has been incarcerated.
With regard to sentencing and its effect on parole, I see nothing wrong with long and severe sentences for persons such as pushers of dope. But even there it might well be that a sentence hanging over a man's head will do more good than locking him up in a tank. If he is told to be of good behaviour or go to prison for ten years, this might well be the case, though I would leave it to the psychologists and prison experts to decide what will be a reasonable time after which to allow him out on parole and see whether or not he will again defy society.
We should also recognize that people in jail should not be regarded as slaves. Where possible, a prisoner should be allowed to earn money by the sweat of his own brow. We have taken away his liberty: in return he should be allowed to earn money which would be put in a trust fund until he is paroled. When he is paroled we should not necessarily give him the $2,000 or $3,000 that he had accumulated if he had been in prison for a long time, but we should give him a certain amount with which to rehabilitate himself. This could be regarded as rehabilitation pay and he would commence to earn it as soon as he went to jail.
When a prisoner leaves jail he enters a very difficult period of adjustment. For him it is like coming into the sunshine having been too long in the dark: he is blind for a while, lost in society. Any parole officer who knows his job will tell you that the first six months after being released from jail, at a time when a prisoner is trying to find his feet and is very proud and touchy, is a very difficult period. This is because the prisoner finds employment hard to come by.
If he does gain employment, he thinks that the next man on the lathe is watching him all the time, in the same way that for the previous three or four years, or whatever it was, he was kept under surveillance 24 horurs a day. He feels self-conscious. He has lost his pride. Worst of all, perhaps, he has no money, no means of economic support. Perhaps he
February 27, 1970

went to jail for stealing a car because he did not have the money to buy one. When he is released from prison again he has no money to buy a car and he feels crippled financially. He does not feel responsible to himself. His spirit has been bent, if not broken. He is convinced that society has no use for him, and he is self-condemned.
If the prisoner had been taught a trade in the penitentiary, making tin cans, army boots or sewing overalls, he would have earned an honest dollar, money that he knows will be coming to him. It would not be charity. Many people on parole do not want the John Howard Society to hold their hand; similarly, a young woman does not want the Elizabeth Fry Society to tell her how to behave decently. In some cases the prisoners think their lives are not much worse than the lives of those who put them in jail.
If they were able to earn by the sweat of their own brow money which had been put into a trust account for them, they would be put on the street in a way we would like to be treated. You cannot rehabilitate people in halfway houses as fast as you can when you give them money which they have earned. This gives them responsibility and presents them with a challenge to go back into the world and become the normal people they were before they entered prison.
We must remember that these people have had a fall from grace. They committed a crime and were caught. They were given a fair trial-at least, I hope they were, though unfortunately in a good many cases they were not. However, we are putting a tremendous onus upon them to regain their place in society, and we should give them the economic means of so doing. This is more difficult for those who have nothing but the labour of their own hands to turn to. Those who are highly educated and have a Ph.D. can probably step into lucrative employment straight away these days, with our broadminded approach to rehabilitation. Not so the labourer. If he cannot put his $1 on the counter to buy beer along with his pals, he is a second-class citizen.


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, the member of this House who has just spoken made a most interesting presentation based on his knowledge as a member of the House of Commons, his interest in penology and, most of all, on what he learned and understood as, shall I say, a humanitarian when he was a member of the Royal Canadi-
Parole Act
an Mounted Police. I think hon. members should pay particular attention to what he said.
If my memory is correct, for many years he was called upon to arrest and to jail those who had broken the peace. In the hon. member's case, his interest did not stop with arresting and jailing; his interest was-and still is-what happened to those prisoners afterwards. That is why I wish to emphasize the importance of what the hon. member has been saying these past few minutes.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
My position is a little different. I have had an interest in penology in all its aspects for the past 35 years. I have had this interest as a member of the provincial legislature of British Columbia and for almost the past 17 years in this House of Commons. This is not a passing interest; it is an interest that took me to see a man hanged in order that I could understand one aspect of capital punishment. In pursuing this interest I have made until now at least five visits to our penitentiaries every year.
I do not believe in guesswork, and therefore I visit the penitentiaries. During my visit to a penitentiary I have met from five to, on one occasion, 138 inmates in three days. So, Mr. Speaker, I believe I can safely say I have a keen and true interest in penology and I understand that if one breaks the law he must pay the penalty. But I also believe that our Canadian system of penology should not be based on revenge but on rehabilitation.
I sincerely regret that I must say Canada has not yet learned the meaning of modern penology and rehabilitation. We are so confoundedly stupid in respect of governmental decision and in respect of the building of our penitentiaries that in recent years we built a maximum security penitentiary which included aspects that were wiped out in the United States 60 years ago because they were considered to be inhuman. This is what we do in respect of penitentiary construction. If we are 60 years behind in construction, it is perhaps understandable and regrettable that we are so far behind in respect of parole.
Bill S-19 is a bill to amend the Parole Act. What is it? It is a bill containing two items of housekeeping; that is all it is. In this session we have a bill to amend the Parole Act which does not contain a damn thing concerning modern penology or modern parole systems, and which does not show that the government

February 27, 1970
Parole Act
has any understanding ol the procedure concerning rehabilitation or any belief that this should involve anything better than recidivism, the return of people who break the law to our jails and penitentiaries.
Mr. Speaker, I know I am not alone in saying we expected more in this session of Parliament than a couple of housekeeping measures in a bill to amend the Parole Act. We expected that Canada would start to catch up with the meaning of rehabilitation, and would initiate new policies to prove to those who break the law and have to pay the penalty that we are prepared to forgive them by giving them an opportunity to leave the penitentiary on parole under a parole system which does not involve outmoded regulations and procedures which a human being has to break. Do you want to know what I mean by that, Mr. Speaker? Some people will not like this, but I will tell you. Every man has the same considerations whether in penitentiary or out. If a man has been in a penitentiary for two years, five years, ten years or more and suddenly finds himself out in society he is going to blow his top.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: That is right!


Harold Edward Winch: There are two things he might do. He might get drunk, or he might buy a woman. Right?


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Of course.


Harold Edward Winch: Of course. So he breaks his parole, and immediately he has lost his whole period of parole. If he celebrates with beer and a woman, he breaks his parole and is back for the entire term of his original sentence. I do not know; I suppose the Solicitor General (Mr. Mcllraith) is as old as I am, but there are a good many people in jail who are not. Why do we not face the facts of life? Why do we not understand that men who have been inside prison walls in cells should be given a chance to explode a little? But no, not under our parole system!
There certainly is nothing in this bill that indicates a recognition of human nature. No matter how many years a person spends in penitentiary, he has only a few dollars when he comes out-and then what happens? He tries to get a job. Mr. Speaker, I say through you to the members of the House of Commons that I have known, not one but dozens of persons who have come out of penitentiaries in Canada, have obtained a job and learned the next day that someone has

phoned the employer and said, "Do you know that the man you just hired is out of penitentiary and is guilty of a criminal offence?"
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
In one case a man was fired from six successive jobs because a policeman phoned the employers and asked, "Do you know who you have employed?" I think the Parole Act should provide that once a man has served his sentence he should not be prejudiced by our law enforcement officers when he is trying to get a job and holding it. I will go further than that. A man who is incarcerated for over two years in the penitentiary earns so much money. When you take off the few cents a day he is allowed for his canteen costs, he may end up with $50 to $100 on his discharge. He has to become rehabilitated and find a job.
I have suggested for years in this House that since by law a man must work in the penitentiary, we would be saving money as taxpayers if we paid unemployment insurance, so that when a man comes out of the penitentiary on parole and blows the little money he has-and, for God's sake, who blames him for blowing it-he has the basic security of unemployment insurance for three or six months until he can get himself established. This is part of parole.
Has the Solicitor General gone into these matters? Is he interested in them? Not according to the bill in front of us, the only Parole Act bill we have considered this session. It costs approximately $5 a day for every man and woman in the penitentiary. Other countries recognize this fact and act accordingly, as they do in the federal penitentiary system of the United States. If you break the law, you serve a sentence. But if you want to, and do, co-operate then as an inmate why should you not go out and work in industry and come back to jail at night or at the weekend? You get union wages for your work. The inmates are charged for their room and board, and they maintain their families.
We are making a slight start in this direction in Canada, but there is nothing in this bill that would make it a definitive policy. There is nothing in this amending bill to show that we understand parole is granted not only when a man has served a quarter, a third or half of his sentence, but that it could start from the day he began to serve his sentence with understanding for and acceptance of his responsibility.
February 27, 1970



I would be the first to say that if we had a progressive attitude to parole, a modern understanding of penology, and followed it through, and the parolee broke his parole, we should put him back in the cell behind bars, because if he will not accept responsibility that is where he belongs. But I firmly believe, from visiting our jails and penitentiaries over 35 years and listening to thousands of people in them, that if we could convince them we are interested in their rehabilitation, and not in revenge, and gave them the opportunity for rehabilitation by saying they were under our control but outside the cell and the prison walls, there would be far less recidivism than there is today. We would reclaim many more of them to a social rather than an anti-social attitude, and would thereby save millions of taxpayers dollars which are now being wasted because of our outdated understanding of penology and our outdated approach to the probation and parole systems.
I hope you agree, Mr. Speaker, that I have been speaking on the principle of this bill all the way through my remarks. I am heartbroken and disgusted that in the first session of a new Parliament, all that the government has introduced to amend the Parole Act is a couple of housekeeping measures. I speak most sincerely on this matter, as did the hon. member who preceded me and who can perhaps speak with more authority than I can, having been a sergeant in the RCMP for many years.
We hope the government, in the interest of rehabilitating those who have broken the law, in the interest of humanity and in the interest of the taxpayers, will take a new look at our system of penology and will try to learn from the experience of countries outside Canada, even some that are supposed to be heathenish. I have heard some people say how wrong it is, oh my God, to allow conjugal relations inside prison, as is the case in some countries. What is wrong with that? The biological urge of a man in prison is no different from that of a man outside.
I hope the Solicitor General and the government will take a new look at our system of penology and before this session is over will bring in a few comprehensive and understandable amendments to the Parole Act. Let us lead the world in this regard, not follow it.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. May I point out that if the Solicitor General speaks now he will close the debate.
Parole Act


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I shall try to be very brief in my remarks so that the House may reach a decision on the bill before we adjourn. The debate has been wide-ranging and I suppose one might say it went far beyond the bill that is before the House for consideration. But if it did, I have no complaint because while it was far-ranging it covered problems of major concern to society today, and I for one was glad to hear the expressions of opinion of the hon. members who took part. In the few minutes at my disposal before we adjourn I shall try to deal with some of the points raised by hon. members. I will leave other points to be dealt with at the committee stage of the bill.
The hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) spoke at length about sentencing which, while it is of real concern, of course, is not directly related to this bill or the Parole Act. It is a subject which comes under the responsibility of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) and has to be dealt with in another context in legislation dealing with sentencing.
The parole process should not be thought of as a review of sentence but rather as a part of the corrections program for persons who have been convicted and sentenced. It is important that it not be regarded as a process of appeal against sentence. I believe that would be fatal to the whole concept of corrections work and would destroy the program that is under way. Rather, it must be used aggressively in the corrections program so that once a person is convicted he is rehabilitated in the quickest and most effective way possible, and assisted to that end.
The hon. member also referred to a particular court case. He was good enough to give me the name of the case after the noon recess. Of course, the authorities will be looking into that matter at once. It would perhaps be inappropriate for me to comment on the case because I do not have detailed information about it. In any event, it is better done by the Parole Board authorities, who have all the files and information before them, rather than my speaking to it without having the necessary information.
The hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert) made an interesting speech and I shall make some comments on it. He spoke about the bill being a housekeeping bill dealing with the Parole Act. Of course, that is precisely what it is, what it was intended to be and what it is put forward as being: it is not intended to be anything other than that. I did not quite understand his desire to have the

February 27, 1970
Parole Act
Parole Act amended, because the Parole Act was amended extensively in 1969 and would seem to give authority for any or all of the propositions that have been asserted today. The problem does not lie in inadequate legislation governing parole; it is one of pressing forward with reform in this area, taking advantage of all the knowledge we can acquire on the subject and using it intelligently.
The rate of reform in this area is very rapid. With respect to the parole figures that were used in the debate, I am afraid there was a misconception. The hon. member was using the figure of paroles granted two or three years ago in respect of federal institutions only, but as the number of persons who returned to prison because of breach of parole he was using the figure applicable to all paroles granted whether the person was in a federal or provincial institution. That led to some confusion and I sought to correct it by asking a question later in the proceedings. The number of paroles granted in 1969-the figures are available right up to the end of last year-was 4,796. That was an increase from 1,750 granted in 1964. Therefore, it will be seen there is a very rapid increase in paroles granted.
The use of day parole has sharply increased. The number of day paroles granted or used, mainly for students returning to school during the day or to university, as the case may be, was 487 last year. Day parole is also used in other circumstances that perhaps can be elaborated on in committee. But it is interesting to note that the use of day parole has sharply increased over the years and how satisfactory it appears to be in the case of young offenders either still at school or who were students before they ran afoul of the law. It is used in order to keep them in their training processes at school or university.
Some rather complimentary remarks were made about the Parole Board, which I was very glad to hear and with which I heartily agree. I appreciate its work very much. I think it is a board that is working efficiently, and I want to make it very clear that we wish to continue that process in the future. It must be a continuing process. This is no place to sit back and rest on the laurels already won. There is an advance to be made in the years ahead. I believe we have one of the best corrections systems in the world today, that we have done a great deal very rapidly but that we have a great deal more to do, which is what interests me and must receive atten-

tion. Reference was made to the Committee on Corrections' report. At the moment that report is receiving very active study by the government. For example, 14 of the committee's recommendations relating to parole are already in operation and the work is going forward very rapidly.
Other hon. members made interesting suggestions, Mr. Speaker. I would like to take the time to comment on them all, but I think it is the sense of the House that I should not do so at this moment. I was very much interested in the remarks of the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather) who spoke about the need to get into the hands of the public more information on what is being done in this field. I heartily concur. This is one area in which I feel we have not been as successful as we should have been. Indeed, if I may say so in all fairness, the remarks of some hon. members indicated the need for bringing up to date information on what has been done very recently in this field, because obviously it was not known to them although they are genuinely concerned with the subject and try to follow it closely.
I welcome the opportunity of appearing before the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs with the estimates of the department, when the whole subject can be pursued in detail. I should add that at the start of this session I suggested to the committee that they visit the penal institutions of this country. I have made that suggestion several times since the opening of the session, the last occasion being as recently as Wednesday of this week. I would hope we could arrange to do that as soon as hon. members are ready.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
Hon. members may select the institutions they wish to visit, but St. Vincent de Paul seemed to be mentioned many times. I would hope that when we visit that institution it is to participate in the start of the physical destruction of a major part of it. New accommodation has been provided to replace it in the Arehambault institution, to which prisoners are being transferred at the rate of 80 a week. I believe the hon. members concerned would share with me the pleasure of starting the physical obliteration and destruction of some of the old wings of the St. Vincent de Paul institution.
Mr. Speaker, I thank hon. members for their remarks and look forward to dealing further with this bill at the committee stage.
February 27, 1970


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.


Mr. Gray:: Mr. Speaker, if I might raise a matter of order, I understand that in spite of the hour there is a disposition in the House to take third reading of the Bill S-7, to amend the Foreign Insurance Companies Act, by virtue of the fact that it covers the same ground as the British Insurance Companies Act which has already been debated in this House. If this is so, I wonder if we could have agreement to proceed to third reading.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, on the assumption that there is no debate, we would agree to this, on division.


Gerald William Baldwin: We agree, Mr. Speaker. Passing this bill on third reading, without debate, appeals to us.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: that Bill S-7, to amend the Foreign Insurance Companies Act, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On
division.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



PRIVILEGE


James Aloysius McGrath: I should like to rise briefly on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. Earlier in our proceedings today during the course of the oral question period I find, on checking the record, that I wrongly accused the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) of making a false and misleading statement. I wish to apologize to the hon. member for
Canada Evidence Act
York South. I have great respect for him and I should like to thank him for taking an interest in the plight of the longshoremen in my constituency. I apologize to the Chair, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It being four o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper, namely, public bills.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North) moved: that Bill C-31, to amend the Canada Evidence Act (incriminating statements), be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, one of the things we Canadians cling to is the idea that the administration of justice in Canada is not only fair but is felt to be superior to the administration of justice in the United States. In recent years, however, decisions by the United States Supreme Court have been responsible for a number of protections being afforded to anyone under arrest, and for restrictions on the police. These protections are unknown in Canada.
My bill has been drafted to put into effect the recommendations made by the United States Supreme Court. I take no credit for the drafting, Mr. Speaker; it was done at my request by a former associate of my colleague the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin), Mr. Theodore Matlow who has had years of experience in the field of criminal law. I am satisfied that the draft which he prepared follows very closely the proposals made by the United States Supreme Court.
I should like to read a couple of paragraphs from the New York Times dated June 14, 1966, in which are summarized the views of the United States Supreme Court both in the news article and in the substantial excerpt from the decision:
The Supreme Court announced today sweeping limitations on the power of the police to question suspects in their custody-
The suspect, the court said, must have been clearly warned that he may remain silent, that anything he says may be held against him and that he has a right to have a lawyer present during interrogation.

February 27, 1970
Canada Evidence Act
If the suspect desires a lawyer but cannot afford one, he cannot be questioned unless a court-appointed lawyer is present.
If the suspect confesses after receiving the required warnings but without having counsel, the burden is on the prosecution to prove a knowing waiver of rights. And any prolonged interrogation will be taken to show a lack of waiver.
Mr. Speaker, I want to quote just one paragraph from the decision. Chief Justice Warren said:
When the defendant denied the accusation and said, "I didn't shoot Manuel, you did it," they handcuffed him and took him to an interrogation room. There, while handcuffed and standing, he was questioned for four hours until he confessed.
During this interrogation, the police denied his request to speak to his attorney, and they prevented his retained attorney, who had come to the police station, from consulting with him.
There are many cases, although not quite as bad, of a similar nature in Canada. I shall refer to one example before spelling out what my bill would do. I refer hon. members to the Steven Truscott case, but it is not my intention to discuss today whether Steven Truscott was guilty of the crime for which he was tried and convicted. I point out, however, that Steven Truscott was picked up by the police; he was 13 or 14 years old; he was taken to the police station; he was questioned for longer than three or four hours. During the time he was being questioned his parents came to the police station but were not allowed access to the boy. At no time were the boy or his parents made aware of the fact that he had the right to have counsel present when being questioned. It is true that Steven Truscott did not confess, but I submit that the whole course of the trial would have been substantially different had counsel been present while he was being questioned. That right was not given to Steven Truscott. My bill would, if enacted, provide the following:
3.	No statement shall be admisisble in evidence against its author in any criminal trial or other criminal proceedings against him unless it is first proved to the satisfaction of the court that it was made voluntarily and without any threat of harm or promise of gain by a person in authority.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
4.	No statement shall be admissible in evidence against its author in any criminal trial or other criminal proceedings against him if such statement was made while its author:
(i)	was in the custody of any person in authority or;
(ii)	reasonably believed that he was in the custody of a person in authority,
unless it is first proved to the satisfaction of the court that immediately prior to making such statement, its author was duly warned by a person in authority that:

(i)	he was not required to make any statement;
(ii)	if he voluntarily chose to make a statement, it would be taken down in writing and might later be used in evidence against him;
(iii)	he was legally entitled to legal counsel and that if he could not afford counsel, one would be assigned to act on his behalf if he so desired.
5.	(a) If, pursuant to section 4, a request for counsel is made, it shall forthwith be made known to a justice having jurisdiction who shall make all investigations that he shall require to inquire into the financial means of the person on behalf of whom the request for counsel was comunicated;
(b) If the justice believes that the person who requested counsel has not sufficient means to obtain counsel, he shall forthwith assign counsel to act on behalf of that person.
6.	(a) No person shall be interrogated by any person in authority after such person has requested counsel until such person has had a reasonable opportunity to confer with his counsel;
(b) Every person is entitled to the presence of counsel during all interrogations by a person in authority.
7.	No statement shall be admissible in evidence against its author in any criminal trial or other criminal proceedings against him if he was without the benefit of counsel at the time the statement was made unless it is first proved to the satisfaction of the court that the author knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to counsel provided by this act.
One need only visit the magistrate's courts or read any Canadian metropolitan newspaper for a couple of months to realize that people are frequently denied the right to counsel. There was a case in Toronto in the summer of 1969, a few months ago, involving Mrs. Shirley Hunter. She suffers from a sickness that makes her appear drunk, and she was involved in a slight accident and taken to the police station. When she tried to telephone her husband, the telephone was torn out of her hand. Her husband was called later and notified she was in jail but he was not permitted to see her. She was kept in jail overnight. The damage to her emotional and nervous system was considerable. As I say, she was not allowed to call her husband, she was refused bail and was not permitted to see counsel after her arrest.
In 1966 there was a case involving an Ottawa girl, Ann Lalonde, who had gone to Toronto. Ostensibly, her offence was being a vagrant in Yorkville. Here I am not concerned with whether she was guilty or not; I am concerned more with the magistrate's attitude. She appeared before Magistrate Donald Graham. Naturally, a young 17-year old girl from Ottawa who visits Toronto will not have a lawyer. I wish to read part of the discussion between Magistrate Graham and the girl, if
February 27, 1970

what took place can be termed a discussion. The magistrate said:
You wander, all day. You've got to tell me where you're going to stay in the next week or so, or you're going to stay in custody. Why can't you go back to Ottawa?
The girl replied:
Because I don't want to.. .1 had my own room the other week. There is nothing wrong with that. It is not against the law.
The magistrate said:
It is against the law, that is why you are here. Where are you living now, today, where is your room?
Later the magistrate said:
Well, we don't need you in Toronto and we don't want you wandering around. You'll get a decent place to live and you'll get a decent job if you're going to stay here, or you'll stay in custody-
And so on and so forth. The magistrate was giving his opinion when he said a person ought to have a decent job-a decent job being one that he no doubt approved of. I may agree with the magistrate. The point is that throughout the trial the magistrate consistently behaved in a way he would not have behaved had counsel been there to represent the girl. The magistrate did that only because the girl appeared in court without a lawyer. He would never have spoken to her that way if she had been represented by counsel, because he would have known that counsel would have taken the case to appeal and the appeal court very firmly and in no uncertain terms would have commented on what happened during the trial below.
I say this because I assume magistrates who are appointed have some knowledge of the law. I see the hon. member from Ottawa shaking his head. That really disturbs me! Every person in the land-not just businessmen, Members of Parliament, professional men and professional criminals, who certainly know their rights-should have the chance to be represented by a lawyer. They should not be required to make a statement to the police or to be questioned until the lawyer, if they want one, is present.
I repeat that every person ought to enjoy a fundamental right in Canada, the right to be represented by counsel at preliminary proceedings in order to make sure he is later given a fair trial. That is the position the United States Supreme Court has taken. It has spelled out the rights of the people and said that if the police, prosecuting attorneys or authorities ignore those rights, any convictions based on proceedings which have contravened those rights may be set aside.
Canada Evidence Act
I understand the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) may propose legislation along those lines in future, together with other changes to the Criminal Code, in order to spell out the rights to which ordinary people are entitled. I hope hon. members will support the principle of this bill.


Mr. Hyl Chappell (Peel South):: Mr. Speaker, although I admire what the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) has in mind, I cannot go as far as he would, nor would I like to see the principle of the recent United States decision codified into our law. Bill C-31 would add part IV to the Canada Evidence Act to exclude statements made by an accused or suspected person during the investigation of an alleged breach of the Criminal Law unless taken under circumstances which provide the maximum of protection to him.
Generally speaking, under this bill the statement would be excluded unless the author was warned (1) that he was not obliged to make a statement; (2) if he did, it would be taken down and used against him; and (3) that he was entitled to have a lawyer present and, by inference, that that lawyer would be paid for by the province or the federal authority. All the lawyer would have to do if he must be there is say to the accused person, "You need not give a statement" and for all practical purposes all statements would be wiped out.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
Certainly, sometimes there is abuse in taking statements; there is no question about that. But against this, do we take such a drastic step as to do away with, for all practical purposes, the use of the statement or confession and thus assist the criminal element, or at least a branch of society in which many turn out to be convicted criminals? The law up to now, as I understand it, is that in Canada, as in other common law nations, the confession must be voluntary. If there is any flattery of hope, or torture of fear present in the statement, it is excluded. The rules are not rigid. They are flexible. As has been the custom for centuries under British common law, there is discretion on the part of the trial judge. He makes the decision and usually after a trial within a trial he satisfies himself that the statement was voluntary.
Under the law as it is today, a lawyer need not be present when the accused is being questioned. If a lawyer is called, he will usually say to his client, "Don't talk until I get

February 27, 1970
Canada Evidence Act
there." I believe most lawyers take the further precaution of phoning the detective and saying, "I talked to my man and told him not to talk. If he does talk, I am going to be most suspicious." In my experience, that usually works. I think our flexible rules, which are growing and giving more protection, are quite good.
I think the first two points mentioned by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) could be codified, namely; that an accused must be warned that he need not give a statement and that if he does it will be taken down and may be used against him. With regard to his suggestion that a lawyer should be present and paid for attending on behalf of the accused, it is not possible as the law is today. The only way a lawyer could be paid by a province is if legal aid has been introduced, as it has in Ontario; but it has not been introduced in many of the other provinces.
But I wish to deal with the suggestion at a higher level. Do we want to go as far as the hon. member suggests? In some cases, Mr. Speaker, questioning is absolutely essential for crime detection. For example, with a murder or wounding among a youthful and riotous gang, any one of them could be suspect because there is no real motive; it was done in the heat of the moment. I suggest there is no way of solving that crime unless confession and questioning are usable. Without statements and confessions I suspect that 15 to 40 per cent of those now convicted would have escaped detection and conviction.
What would public reaction be in respect to sexual offences against young children if the offenders were not apprehended? Why are we so concerned about hampering the police? They are not a foreign power trying to harm our society; they are our representatives acting on our behalf in protecting society. I wonder if at times we have too much concern for the criminal and not enough for the good people who seek to be protected.
How does the proposed treatment of problem children compare with the treatment of other members of our society? I believe it is almost certain that we will allow the police to use wire-tapping to catch criminals. It just is not possible to do that without tapping the telephone lines of innocent people, which is a very serious invasion of privacy.
What about the breathalyzer? An accused can now be dragged out of his home, taken to a police station and asked to submit to a

breathalyzer test. He cannot have a lawyer present and he cannot refuse the test. If the reading is .09 he is convicted. He has a police record. Even if the magistrate believes that he had only one ounce of alcohol and was not impaired, he is still convicted and has a record.
I heard recently of a man in Cayuga being picked up. His reading was .09. He went to the next police station, which was in Hamilton, and they refused to give him the test. He then went to a hospital and asked for blood and urine tests but was refused. Many of these people have made only one mistake, yet we are giving this extreme authority to the police. I wonder why we are so conscious about criminals who may be repeaters and insist that they must have a lawyer present every time, and thus destroy the benefit of confession or statement evidence.
Although I cannot go so far as the hon. member has suggested, because I think it would amount to coddling criminals in comparison with the way in which we treat automobile drivers, I do have some concern for the poor and less experienced people who are brought to police stations. I would like to see a sign posted in all police stations which reads, "You need not give a statement." Perhaps it should go even further. The law could provide that one must sign a form to the effect that it was explained to him that he did not have to make a statement.


Mr. Barnett:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member would permit a question.


Hyliard G. Chappell: I just have one more thought. If I could finish that, I will be pleased to answer the hon. member's question. I would go even further and agree that a lawyer could be present, with certain limitations. Experienced criminals or people in the know, such as lawyers, doctors and reporters, would get their lawyer there rather quickly and would know enough not to talk in the meantime. But if there is to be a lawyer for all, someone has to pay that lawyer to stand by. He must be available immediately. We cannot have the police held up in their investigation from six o'clock at night until ten o'clock the next morning waiting for a lawyer to come into his office.
There is another important point. If the lawyer is allowed to be present, he must not prevent the questioning. If he is to be present, the hon. member's first point must be
February 27, 1970

struck down. The accused is subject to questioning. The point of the lawyer being there is to prevent unfair questioning and abuse. The statement could be taken down. If there was misbehaviour by the police in spite of the lawyer's objection, there would have to be some provision that an action could be taken against the police for such misbehaviour. In this way we would give protection to those people who are suspect or accused, while at the same time affording to the public the protection which they in turn so amply deserve.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I should like to ask the hon. member whether I heard him correctly. I understood him to assert that the police could enter my home, drag me out, take me to a station and force me to submit to a breathalyzer test, and if there was a reading of .09 I would then have a criminal conviction recorded against me. Is this what the hon. member said?


Hyliard G. Chappell: If I used the word "drag," I did not mean dragged physically. It is unlikely the police would do that. There would probably be a charge of resisting arrest. After an accident they could enter your home within two hours. If an officer smelled liquor on your breath, he could ask you to go to the station. You would have to submit to a breathalyzer test, and if the reading was .08 or more you could be charged, and would have a police record.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I take it this would happen only if one had been involved in an automobile accident.


Hyliard G. Chappell: No, I would not go that far. It could be that a motorist had run through two or three red lights, a pedestrian had noted his licence number and telephoned the police.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: The officers could enter my home without a warrant?


Hyliard G. Chappell: I will not say they could break down the door, but they could knock at the door and ask you to go with them, and if you did not agree to go you would be subject to another penalty under the Code.


Mr. D. Gordon Blair (Grenville-Carlelon):: Mr. Speaker, the presentation of this bill by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) reflects, I think, the acute concern 21701-55
Canada Evidence Act
felt by society at the present time about the administration of justice and about justice itself. I stress this: I think our concern should be about justice, not only to the persons who are suspected of committing crimes but to all other members of society. I hope that never in this country will we be caught up in the kind of debate they have been conducting south of the border on the subject of law and order. Law and order can only truly be based upon justice and upon the realization by all people that their criminal law is administered in a just way.
The hon. member's proposal really falls into two parts. The first requires that any confession made by a person suspected of a crime must be voluntary. The second requires that before any confession made by a person suspected of a crime is admitted, it must be demonstrated that counsel was present at the interrogation and that he was able to consult counsel, unless the person suspected had clearly and unequivocally waived his right to counsel.
The law of this country has been for many years, and remains, that confessions made by a person accused of a crime can be admitted in evidence against him only if they are voluntary. We may, therefore, have cause to wonder whether it is necessary to incorporate this well known and well understood feature of our law into the Evidence Act. There may be good reason for not doing so if only because of the difficulties which might be created by statutory interpretation in the future denying to persons suspected of crimes the flexibility of approach which is inherent in the present application of this principle under the common law.
The principle has been asserted in many cases. One is the case of Boudreau v. The King, reported in 1949 Supreme Court Reports, page 262, at page 271. Mr. Justice Kellock, quoting the well known words of Lord Summer in Ibrahim v. The King, as follows:
It has long been established as a positive rule of English criminal law, that no statement by an accused is admissible in evidence against him unless it is shown by the prosecution to have been a voluntary statement, in the sense that it has not been obtained from him either by fear of prejudice or hope of advantage exercised or held out by a person in authority. The principle is as old as Lord Hale. The burden of proof in the matter has been decided by high authority.
It is clear from the jurisprudence and from the law as it is applied daily in the courts of

February 27, 1970
Canada Evidence Act
Canada that the burden of proof is on the Crown to establish that any confession made by an accused has been made voluntarily. In these circumstances, as many lawyers here know, a person accused of a crime is advised clearly of his right to remain silent; that any statement he has to make or might wish to make should not be influenced by any hope of advantage or fear of prejudice; and that any statement he might make can be used against him in subsequent proceedings.
There have been occasions in the past when it has been urged in the courts that the procedure for taking statements from accused should be codified in some sort of ritual. This suggestion has never been accepted by our courts. Mr. Justice Rand, in the case of Boudreau v. The King to which I have already referred, stated;
It would be a serious error to place the ordinary modes of investigation of crime in a straitjacket of artificial rules; and the true protection against improper interrogation or any kind of pressure or inducement is to leave the broad question to the court. Rigid formulas can be both meaningless to the weakling and absurd to the sophisticated or hardened criminal; and to introduce a new rite as an inflexible preliminary condition would serve no genuine interest of the accused and but add an unreal formalism to that vital branch of the administration of justice.
It appears to me the position as to voluntary statements being the only ones admissible in evidence against the accused is clearly established at the present time. It would add nothing to the law of Canada to include them in an amendment to the Evidence Act.
The other proposal in the bill would require as a condition of the admissibility of a statement that it be made in the presence of counsel unless the accused or suspected person has waived his right to counsel. This, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North has pointed out, arises from the decisions made in the United States Supreme Court, culminating in the cases of Escobedo v. Illinois, reported in 378 U.S. at page 478, and Miranda v. Arizona, 86 SCR, page 1602.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
The effect of these decisions has been to invalidate confessions made by accused persons when their counsel was not present. What we are talking about here is the right of an accused person who has been taken to a police station to insist that a lawyer be present during his interrogation. This proposal raises very important issues, some of which have been referred to by the hon. member for

Peel South (Mr. Chappell). One of them is most certainly the availability of lawyers all over Canada who might be assumed to be readily on call at any time to attend a police station and remain there during the interrogation of accused persons.
Another problem that occurs to me is the difficulty of application of this procedure to particular offences. One that comes immediately to mind is that mentioned by the hon. member for Peel South-the important change which this Parliament made in the law last session permitting the use of breathalyzers for the detection of alcohol in accused persons and, further, making it an offence to refuse a breathalyzer test. It would appear to me that in this particular type of offence time is of the essence. The whole purport and intent of this important law would be lost if the proceedings were delayed while counsel was obtained.
Apart altogether from these considerations, it seems to me that we in this Parliament should not be too hasty in adopting a novel departure of this type in the law. We should recognize that the decisions of the United States Supreme Court have been the subject of much discussion in that country; indeed, they could be described as being greatly controversial. We must remember, in the words of one English judge, that "When a confession is well proved, it is the best evidence that can be produced".
The fact that the United States courts have ruled against the admissibility of confessions except when they were obtained in the presence of counsel has greatly disturbed public opinion in the United States. It is obvious from what one reads that not only law enforcement authorities but the public at large are concerned that people who really have voluntarily disclosed their connection with a crime are permitted to go free because counsel was not present in the police station at the time the confession was made. I believe that we in this Parliament should be very careful not to take steps to change the law and criminal procedure in a way that would not have wide acceptance by the majority of our fellow citizens.
Finally, I recognize, as others undoubtedly will, that the discussion in the United States does not run all one way. There are those who contend that the administration of justice there has not been unduly hampered by these new rules; that, indeed, the effect of these new rules has been to improve the quality of police work and crime detection. In my
February 27, 1970

submission, Mr. Speaker, it appears somewhat premature definitively to make a great change in our criminal law and procedure such as that envisaged in this bill without waiting a reasonable time to see how the new rules are in fact working out in the United States.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I could ask the hon. member a question. I ask the hon. member, who I know has had a great deal of experience in the courts, whether he knows of cases of people accused of relatively serious crimes-crimes, let us say, for which they can be indicted-who have an income of more than $10,000 a year and have gone to court without a lawyer giving them all the protection they need.


Duncan Gordon Blair: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is undoubtedly aware of the fact that the Canadian Bill of Rights states affirmatively that a person is entitled to counsel. This has been interpreted by the Supreme Court of Canada to mean that in any court proceeding an accused is entitled to have counsel.
I do not wish to infringe on the time, but in the course of his remarks my hon. friend referred to the offence of vagrancy, which is really poverty. This is a stated offence; it is not altogether a matter of procedure. He went on to say that he felt one person who had been accused might have done better had she had a lawyer. I should like to point out to my hon. friend that in Ontario, at any rate, under the present legal aid scheme duty counsel are now available in all magistrate's courts in the province and it is highly unlikely that a situation such as he described would happen again.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Mr. Speaker, the right to make a confession or a statement to the police has two sides to it. Presumably, this motion purports to protect the rights of the individual. I am afraid that sometimes, if the motion were put into law, it might work against the rights of the individual. I think particularly of cases involving children and, again, I am relying on my own personal experience. Where an offence has been committed against a child, the child will usually blurt out the truth the first time he comes in contact with someone who he thinks will help him. But often there is pressure from the parents, guardians or other people who should have been responsible for the child in the first place, people who should have protected him, people who themselves may well 21701-55J
Canada Evidence Act
be responsible for the offence committed against the child, and in such cases it is very difficult to get to the truth of the matter.
Under British law, the burden of proving guilt is, of course, on the Crown. In many cases this burden on the Crown is a very onerous one indeed. It may be that in a case involving a child, the child himself is the only witness and the only possible proof of the crime is the statement of the child against the person who it is alleged has offended him. If any statutory hurdle is placed between the child and justice, I am sure that the hon. member who introduced the motion would be the first to say that it would be better to take a chance and leave things as they are. We have our courts and we have our judges. In every court I have been in the accused has been given the opportunity, if he thinks he is being treated injustly, to take the stand in his own defence. Certainly he has the right to speak, if not for himself then through a lawyer.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
As the last speaker said, in Ontario a man is entitled to seek legal advice if he needs it. In a great many cases I think a person is just as well off if he defends himself and he is clearly innocent. I have known cases where I believe that if the accused person had taken the stand he might have cleared himself, but by the time the case became tangled up with legal jargon, and so on, the court became confused. From my experience in court I am not sure that a voluntary statement has had any effect in causing injustice. The difficulty, of course, is where the statement is involuntary. However, that raises another aspect. I think a look might be taken at our legal system to see whether a little more protection might be given to people who are bullied.
In cases involving the arrest of juveniles I believe there should be an official of the court into whose custody the child could immediately be placed. This person should rarely be the police officer who makes the arrest. It should be a social worker or similar person. Perhaps a young person who is arrested should be treated in the way in which a female person is treated: in that case a matron takes charge of the accused person. In my opinion there is no reason why a matron or a social worker could not be called immediately and be at the police station when the child was brought in. If the child were

February 27. 1970
Canada Evidence Act
turned over to such a person immediately, there would be no possibility of anyone saying the child had been under duress. If any statement made by a child were considered to be inadmissible in court because the child did not go through the formality of calling legal counsel, I believe in many cases this would be to the detriment of the child himself and certainly to the detriment of the administration of justice.


Mr. Douglas A. Hogarth (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what benefit there is in being the anchor man on a Friday afternoon. In any event, I would not want to proceed with my remarks this afternoon without first stating my profound admirat'on for the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow)-who has not had the benefit of or is otherwise not encumbered by a legal education-for bringing forth a bill which is so much involved with very difficult legal concepts.
I think I can express equal concern with him about the necessity of maintaining the standards of justice in Canada. I found that most of his observations were not directed in a sense to the question of the admissibility of confessions and statements, but to a large extent involved criticism of the courts in certain cases, or criticism of the police. In our society I do not believe there is any doubt that the public must always be watchful of the extent to which the police might abuse their powers, or the extent to which the courts might act against the true principles of justice.
With regard to the observation of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett) about the breathalyzer test, I think that if he would review the debate which took place in the Justice Committee and this House he would find that the compulsory aspect of the breathalyzer test is quite different from the matter with which we are concerned today.
The bill before us is an attempt to curb police powers. It is an attempt to curb those powers by the introduction of the United States exclusionary rule of evidence which states that evidence illegally obtained cannot be admitted. We gave serious consideration to this rule during the hearings of the Committee on Justice when we were discussing the problems in respect of electronic surveillance.
I am diametrically opposed to the U.S. exclusionary rule being adopted in Canadian
IMr. Bigg.]
criminal jurisprudence. I am satisfied that our present rule, if properly applied, is the best available rule in this regard. The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Blair) quoted the rule. It has been quoted throughout the country for years in the famous words of Viscount Sumner. I do not intend to repeat what he said, but I have heard it quoted in courtrooms on many occasions when the learned judge has said that the principle is as old as Lord Hale.
Every time I hear that, I reflect on how old Lord Hale was at the time. In any event, in considering some aspects of the rule I think we should also consider what might be the result if this bill were passed. In the first instance, the history of the rule is founded upon centuries of experience in the British courts, that if a person who is about to be charged with a criminal offence-I think it should be noted that the real change in the law comes only after the man is in custody- is threatened by the policy with physical harm, or an inducement is held out to him by way of promise of favour, the concern of the courts is that what he says by way of confession might not be true because he would rather confess to a crime than suffer the physical harm to which he would be subjected.
I think it fair to state that many criminal lawyers today have grave doubts about the background and the substance of this rule; that is to say, that he would necessarily say things that were not true. But I think we should bear in mind the unpredictability of the human mind, the natural catharsis of confession, and the fact that people will often confess to crimes they have never committed whether they are threatened with regard to them or whether or not an inducement is held out.
Bearing all these matters in mind, I think the rule we have should be maintained without variation; if for no other reason, just as a matter of public policy to make certain we have some control over police powers when it comes to threatening an accused person or offering him promises of favour. I think it should principally be made clear that the rule applies solely to statements which are inculpatory. All of us who have practised in criminal courts have seen many people convicted as a result of making false statements which were not inculpatory but were later proven to be false.
February 27, 1970



One comment I should like to make concerns the definition of "statement" in this bill. A statement is defined as an admission, orally or in writing, made at any time by a person being interrogated about a crime or charged with a crime-
Canada Evidence Act


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. The hour provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired.
At 5 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, March 2, 1970