1971-03-24

PRIVILEGE


Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to rise at this time and raise a question of privilege affecting all members of the House. Last evening, unknown to other members of the Standing Committee on Agriculture, when the meeting was called at 8 p.m. there was a firm intention by the government members on that committee to sit until the committee was exhausted.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I should like to move, seconded by the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Korchinski):
That the question of the validity and regularity of the sittings of the Standing Committee on Agriculture, which began at 8 p.m. in the afternoon of Tuesday, the 23rd of March, 1971, and continued thereafter until 7.30 a.m. o'clock in the forenoon-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


An hon. Member:: It was an idiotic thing to do.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: -of the 24th day of March, 1971, and of the proceedings at such sittings be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
I might explain that there was no prior consultation with the other parties.
Whether you like it or not, Mr. Speaker, you are directly affected because Standing Order 88 reads:
The hours of attendance of the respective officers of this House, and the extra clerks employed during the session, shall be fixed from time to time by Mr. Speaker.
Prior to eight o'clock the clerks employed in the Standing Committee on Agriculture were all notified that there was going to be an all-night sitting. Having been duly notified, they arranged among themselves to work in two shifts, some to work up to midnight and some to carry on until the committee adjourned.
With regard to when a committee shall adjourn, Beau-chesne's Fourth Edition, citation 303, section 3, reads:
Committees should be regularly adjourned from day to day-
The Standing Committee on Agriculture has not been regularly adjourned for a long time. The citation continues:
-though the Chairman is frequently allowed to arrange the day and hour of sitting, but this can be done only with the general consent of the committee.
There was no general consent. I wish to draw particular attention to the words, "the Chairman is frequently allowed to arrange". To me they suggest that there should be prior arrangement or prior consultation. That is the whole purpose of steering committees, they are set up to advise on the arranging of committee sittings and what witnesses ought to appear. No steering committee arranged the all-night sitting of the agricultural committee. It was done by a secret method.


Mr. Greene:: The hon. member can't stand the heat.


Some hon. Members:: The same old bunch.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: May I refer to Standing Order 65(10), found at page 72 of the Standing Orders, which clearly states:
In a standing or special committee, the Standing Orders of the House shall be observed so far as may be applicable, except the Standing Orders as to the seconding of motions, limiting the number of times of speaking and the length of speeches.
In that connection may I also quickly refer to Standing Order 2 which relates to hours of sittings of the House. I do not think that the question of the hours that a committee can sit and when it shall adjourn is specifically spelled out, either in Beauchesne or in the Standing Orders. But surely, Mr. Speaker, in employing staff and in guarding the privileges of each and all members of the House, one of the basic principles and duties under our parliamentary system is to protect the rights of minorities.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Under our parliamentary system we must protect minority rights so that minorities may be heard and listened to in a frame of mind that is conducive to good legislation.
I contend that last evening a number of major amendments were suggested and moved in the committee and that on two particular occasions the Chairman ruled out amendments without even hearing argument as to why they should be accepted as being in order. He automatically ruled them out of order.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: He ruled rather authoritatively and in a manner unbecoming of a chairman who is, in essence, a replica of the Speaker of the House.


An hon. Member:: Impeach him.
24081-8J

March 24, 1971
Committee Sitting Hours


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I contend that the words, "general consent" in citation 303 (3) of Beauchesne's Fourth Edition means, in essence, unanimous consent, and that the words, "the Chairman is frequently allowed to arrange the day and hour of sitting", means that the day and hours of sitting should be prearranged by a steering committee. In the present case this was not done and was not even attempted to be done.
May I refer to one other section of the Standing Orders which provides that it is the duty of the Speaker of the House and the chairman of a committee at all times to keep proper decorum within the House and within the committee.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Early this morning, unknown to me or to other members of the committee, food was sent in and at four o'clock food was consumed while the committee proceedings were going on.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, this may be all right for the type of sitting that went on last night but I am sure it has never been allowed in the House and I do not believe it should be allowed in committees.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I suggest that the whole question of the adjournment of committee sittings and the disgraceful and unprecedented proceedings that took place last night should be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections for examination.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member gave the Chair notice of his intention to raise a question of privilege. The House has heard the hon. member for Crowfoot and the Chair has listened attentively to the submissions he has made.
As hon. members know, it has not been the practice to allow a general debate on the matter until such time as a ruling has been made on whether there is a prima facie case. The exception, of course, is when an hon. member is personally involved and his conduct is questioned by a proposed motion submitted to the House by an hon. member who raises a question of privilege.
I have some doubts whether the Minister of Agriculture is in any way involved in this matter. It is my understanding that he is not a member of that committee. At the same time, the Chair is not aware who sits on committees from day to day because there are frequent changes. I am simply assuming that the minister is not a member. Perhaps the minister might speak briefly and indicate how he is involved in the question of privilege, because there really should not be a debate until the matter has been intensively and seriously considered by the Chair.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might apologize for one comment I made.


An hon. Member:: You didn't say anything at all.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I will be very brief. I referred to the chairman of the committee. The chairman recommended to the committee that we adjourn some time between ten thirty and eleven o'clock; he then left the committee and it was taken over by the vice-chairman. I may have implied that the Chairman had ruled authoritatively. I must say that the Chairman was very considerate.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: At the
outset, Mr. Speaker, I would like to reply to Your Honour's inquiry as to how this question of privilege may affect me. In his opening comments the hon. member for Crowfoot suggested that the question of privilege he was raising affected all members of the House. If that is so, then whether I am a member of the committee or not seems to me to be irrelevant.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The minister should find a better reason.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest that it would not be conducive to a proper proceeding of the House if every member of the House considered himself to be involved and wanted to participate in the debate on this question of privilege. I do not think that is a sufficient reason. I certainly do not want to be negative in this regard. If the minister can quickly and briefly indicate what his personal involvement is in the question of privilege, he may proceed.


Some hon. Members:: Tell us.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, in addition to the reason I have just given, I am sure Your Honour will agree that, on a matter affecting a bill that I have sponsored in the House and its progress through the Standing Committee on Agriculture, before which I have been called as a witness, it is obvious why I should have a great and deep interest in the proceedings of that committee. I do not wish to particularly argue that point, Mr. Speaker. I want to assist Your Honour, as briefly as I can, in considering the alleged prima facie case of privilege that has been placed before you.
Some opinions have been expressed in the course of raising the question of privilege which are not facts. I am not suggesting that opinions and facts are necessarily synonymous. For example, the hon. member has said that under Standing Order 88 it is your responsibility, Mr. Speaker, to notify the staff and other officials concerned, and he questioned whether or not this had been done. I do not know whether you or your officers informed the staff who were serving that committee, but I do say that that question has no relevance whatever.

March 24, 1971

The other point mentioned by the hon. member for Crowfoot was that some secret manoeuvring took place, which was doing damage to the business of this House-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: -with respect to the motions to adjourn which were moved in the committee. There were at least eight or ten or perhaps more motions to adjourn the committee between 8 p.m. last night and 7.30 a.m. this morning, and there was nothing secret about any one of them.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is a simple one. Is this question now being debated? May we all get into it?


Mr. Speaker:: That is precisely the point the Chair made a moment ago, and I have made this point before. Certainly, if the minister were allowed to debate the matter, every other member of the House should be allowed to participate. I am suggesting very simply and very humbly to the minister and to other hon. members that we have established a practice which appears to be working fairly well by allowing a member to state his position. If a member is personally involved, or if his conduct is impugned, I have always thought it would be the desire of other members of the House that the member concerned be given an opportunity to explain his position, but that the matter should rest there, and that the Speaker should then be given an opportunity to look at the matter objectively in order to determine whether there is a prima facie case of privilege. Should ;he Chair decide that there is, members could debate the matter if they wish to do so.
It seems to me that if I hear argument from the minister I must certainly hear from the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and from any other hon. member who wishes to participate.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I was attempting to be helpful by setting before Your Honour for your consideration some opinions which might not correspond with the opinions that were expressed by the hon. member for Crowfoot. However, I can see the difficulty you are having and I will certainly be very brief.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest to the minister and to all hon. members that the practice we have followed has been helpful to all of us in the conduct of our business and I should think that the argument which the minister is making now will not be helpful. I think the House has to trust the Chair to look at all aspects of the matter. The hon. member for Crowfoot is prepared to do this; he has left the matter in the hands of the Speaker. If the minister pursues the procedural argument he is making I see no reason why other members should not be given an opportunity to do so. The hon. member for Crowfoot has submitted the matter to the attention of the Chair and he has indicated what his motion would be if it were ruled by the Chair that there is a prima facie case of privilege. I recognize that this is a serious matter and one which deserves the full attention of the Chair. My thought is
Committee Sitting Hours
that the question should be allowed to rest for the moment until I have consulted with the Clerk of the committee and with the officials of the House and advisers of the Chair. In due course I shall indicate to the hon. member whether I feel this is the kind of question which should be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. It seems to me this is a much more reasonable way in which to handle the matter.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I have been under the impression that it is usual when a prima facie case of privilege is being alleged to hear some comment, perhaps very brief comment-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the minister that is not the practice and it has not been the practice for some time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Fifth report of Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs-Mr. Tolmie.
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing the House that the Senate has passed Bill S-ll, an act to provide for the obtaining of information respecting weather modification activities, to which concurrence of this House is desired.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. MacLean:: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might be allowed on motions to raise a question of order. There has been some discussion, though not as complete as I would have liked, with House Leaders of the other parties and I think there might be agreement to the House making an order to transfer from this supply period to the next supply period the remaining motion of non-confidence that would have been moved on tomorrow's opposition day. If it is agreeable I would ask that this motion be transferred to opposition day in the next supply period.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions and I think we all agree to this request.

March 24, 1971
Questions


Mr. MacEachen:: Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, the proposal is that instead of having a vote tomorrow night on the motion that will be put forward, we expect, by the official opposition, an additional motion in the next period will be a voting motion, and that the number of motions in the session will not be increased. If that is the understanding, then this is certainly agreeable to the government.


John Angus MacLean: That is correct, Mr. Speaker. My reason for raising this point at this time, of course, is that a notice has to be put in within the next few hours.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed and so ordered?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER

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

Mr. Paproski: 1.	Has Rochdale College received federal funds in any shape or form and, if so (a) from what sources (b) for what purpose?
2.	What has been the total amount of federal expenditure authorized on behalf of Rochdale College?


Mr. J. A. Jerome (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: The Citizenship Branch of the Department of the Secretary of State and the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation advise as follows:
1.	(a) The Citizenship Branch of the Department of the Secretary of State has provided grants for projects undertaken at Rochdale College, (b) June, 1967, $5,000. During its early stages, Rochdale was of interest to the Citizenship Branch as a Canadian experiment in social organization and youth participation and its development was thus assisted.
May, 1968, $110 to assist a spin-off project of Rochdale, the Indian Institute, in its attempt to develop a better understanding of Canadian-Indian culture. For the first Cross-Cultural Workshop, the Citizenship Branch provided $110.
December, 1968, $1,500 to Rochdale College, in support of its experiments to develop new, participatory approaches to learning. On this occasion Rochdale experimented with a project to involve the community in the appreciation of dance and art forms.
December, 1969, $200 to Rochdale College, for a task force of the College engaged in the production of a handbook on legal rights.
2.	In so far as the Citizenship Branch of the Department of the Secretary of State is concerned, four grants totalling $6,810 have been made to Rochdale College, and projects within the College since 1967.
Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation made a loan of $5,004,360 under Part VIA of the National

Housing Act, in 1967, to Co-operative College Residences, Inc., for the purpose of constructing a student housing project at 341 Bloor Street West, Toronto. Co-operative College Residences, Inc., by declaration of trust, has declared Rochdale College to be the beneficial owner of these premises.


GRANTS TO FRONTIER COLLEGE
Mr. Robinson: 1.	Have any grants been made to Frontier College in 1969 and also 1970 and, it not, are any to be made?
2.	Has any application for a grant been received from Frontier College in either 1969 or 1970?
3.	Does the work of Frontier College in any way overlap with the work of the Company of Young Canadians and, if so, in what regard?
4 Will the government consider the advisability of providing funds for volunteers in Frontier College on the same basis as there is an allotment of funds provided for workers with the Company of Young Canadians?


James Alexander Jerome: The Departments of Labour, Manpower and Immigration, Secretary of State and the Company of Young Canadians advise as follows: 1. Yes. (i) The Department of Labour, $5,000 in 1969 and $5,000 in 1970. (ii) The Department of Manpower and Immigration, $20,000 in the fiscal year 1970-71.
2.	Yes. (i) The Department of Labour: Letters requesting payment of grants were sent to the Department of Labour by the College in June, 1969, and June, 1970. (ii) The Department of Manpower and Immigration: In December, 1969, an application for a grant for the fiscal year 1970-71 was received, (iii) The Department of the Secretary of State, Citizenship Branch: A request for a grant of $47,000 for the fiscal year 1970-71 was received in September 1970.
3.	The work of the two organizations is quite different in that the role of the person in Frontier College is that of a worker teacher in a community, while in the Company of Young Canadians the volunteer is engaged in community development work in a community. The two roles can complement each other in a community where both are required.
4.	No.


NATIONAL SECURITY-COST OF MEASURES TAKEN IN LAPORTE AND CROSS KIDNAPPINGS
Mr. Fortin: 1.	What was the cost of measures taken when Messrs. Laporte and Cross were kidnapped?
2.	Has there been an analysis of the economic effects of those events and, if so, what are they?
3.	What measures is the government considering to avoid a repetition of events of this nature?


James Alexander Jerome: The Government advises as follows: 1. and 2. Information is not available to provide an accurate answer to this question, nor is there avail-
March 24, 1971

able for this purpose the expert staff required to undertake the large amount of work necessary to collect and analyze the information involved.
3.	All levels of government are giving continuing consideration to all appropriate measures to ensure the reasonable safety of public officials.


NATIONAL SECURITY-COST OF EMPLOYMENT OF ARMED FORCES AND RCMP DURING QUEBEC CRISIS
Mr. Coates: How many members of the Armed Forces and of the RCMP were employed by the federal government in provinces other than the Province of Quebec as a result of the ''apprehended insurrection" in the Province of Quebec, and (a) what is the break-down by province (b) what has been the cost to date to the federal government (c) on what basis will these costs be met (d) will the provincial governments be requested to make a contribution toward these costs and, if so, what will be the proposed cost-sharing arrangement?


James Alexander Jerome: I am informed by the Department of National Defence, the Department of the Solicitor General, and the Prime Minister's and Privy Council Offices as follows: In so far as the Department of National Defence is concerned, it is not considered to be in the best interests of national security to release at this time the exact numbers of Canadian forces personnel employed outside the Province of Quebec as a direct result of the "apprehended insurrection" in that province. Although Canadian Forces' bases across Canada tightened security and increased guards, the only significant area of Canadian Forces' involvement outside Quebec was in Ottawa. No additional members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police were employed on a full time basis. Numerous members worked overtime in various capacities, (a) Nil. (b) Extra duties such as overtime for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police are not compensated for. Expenses other than wages are as follows: British Columbia, $1,619; Alberta, $3.30; Saskatchewan, $158; Manitoba, $80; Ontario, $24,022; New Brunswick, $550; Nova Scotia, $55; Newfoundland, $248; Prince Edward Island, $55. (c) and (d) No decision has been reached yet regarding the sharing of these costs.


HALIFAX INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT-EMPLOYMENT OF CANADIAN CORPS OF COMMISSIONAIRES
Mr. Forreslall: 1.	How many members of the Canadian Corps of Commissionaires are employed at the Halifax International Airport and, by rank, at what rates?
2.	What is the arrangement between the Corps and the Government of Canada with respect to work carried out by the Commissionaires?
3.	What is the hourly rate paid to Commissionaires by their primary employer by rank?
4.	Is there parity in pay scales with respect to the arrangements between Government and the Corps throughout Canada and, if not, for what reason?
Questions
5.	What was the date that the current contract with the Corps was entered into by the government (a) when was it last reviewed (b) when does it expire (c) are changes being considered?


James Alexander Jerome: I am informed by the Departments of Supply and Services and Transport as follows: 1. There are presently five commissionaires employed at the Halifax International Airport. The complement consists of one Sergeant, two Corporals and two Commissionaires.
The billing rates follows:	for Commissionaire	Services are
	Regular Hours	Overtime
	or Statutory Holidays	Hours
Commissionaire	$1.91	$2.73Corporal	$2.06	$2.95Sergeant	$2.21	$3.182.	The five members of the Canadian Corps of Commissionaires employed at the Halifax International Airport are supervised by an RCMP NCO and are assigned duties laid out in RCMP Post Orders such as, entry controls of restricted areas, fire and security patrols, traffic and parking regulation and the reporting of incidents of security import. The services provided by the Corps are accounted for and certified by the RCMP NCO and invoices are passed to the Financial Services Branch of the RCMP for payment. The RCMP are repayed these moneys by the Airports Branch of the Department of Transport.3.	The source for this information is the Canadian Corps of Commissionaires.4.	As in the case of other services purchased by the Government commercially on a national scale, the labour rates reflect local conditions and are normally compatible with prevailing rates paid by private employers in the same area and for comparable services.5.	The current contract with the Canadian Corps ofCommissionaires which has an automatic annual renewal clause was entered into by the Government on April 1, 1966. (a) It was amended on December 21, 1967.	(b) It expires on March 31, 1971.	(c) Yes,
changes are being considered.


CANADA LABOUR (STANDARDS) CODE SUSPENSE ACCOUNT
Mr. Skoberg: 1.	What payments have been made into the Labour (Standards) Code suspense account and what wages have been paid out of it to entitled employees for each year 1965 to 1970 inclusive?
2.	What amounts have been declared by the Minister to be the property of Her Majesty in right of Canada for each year 1968 to 1970 inclusive?
3.	What balance remained in the Labour (Standards) Code suspense account at the end of 1970?
4.	What proof does the Minister require of employers to show that they have attempted to locate the entitled employees?
5.	What policies and practices are carried out by the Minister in order to attempt to locate the entitled employees once a payment is received into the Labour (Standards) Code suspense account?

March 24, 1971
Questions
6.	With all Canadians now being coded with a social insurance number, what efforts are made between the Department of National Revenue and the Department of Labour to locate the entitled employee?
7.	Is there any administrative machinery established between the federal and provincial departments of Labour to locate the entitled employee?
8.	What efforts are being made to bring about an improvement in the location of entitled employees?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minister of Labour):: 1. Payments made into the Labour (Standards) Code Suspense Account and amounts paid out to entitled employees
to December 31, 1970: Fiscal Year
1965/66 1966/67 1967/68 1968/69 1969/70 1970/Dec. 31
Paid In	Paid Out to Employees
$	$
10,277	1,032
108,567	25,399
274,135	105,472
229,538	89,584
190,717	65,193
91,120	34,879
2.	Amounts declared to be the property of Her Majesty in Right of Canada:
Fiscal Year	Amount

1968/69	Nil
1969/70	40,346
1970/Dec. 31	137,458
3.	Balance in Labour (Standards) Code Suspense Account as at December 31, 1970, $404,991.
4.	None, beyond the statement of the employer that they cannot be located.
5.	A program to have the Department of National Revenue, Taxation, locate and advise the employees of their entitlement is presently under trial using social insurance numbers to locate addresses.
6.	See answer to 5 above.
7.	No.
8.	See answer to 5 above.


'REBATE ON INTERNATIONAL AIR FARES
Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	What action has been taken by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs to ensure that Canadian consumers, who were overcharged on international air fares paid for in Canadian funds, will receive a rebate and what is the total amount involved?
2.	Has the Minister investigated this matter from the standpoint of the possibility of (a) collusion (b) misleading advertising?
3.	What action has been taken in each case?
2.	(a) Air passenger fares are not subject to the Combines Investigation Act. (b) This matter would not appear to fall under section 33D of the Combines Investigation Act.
3.	Answered by 1 and 2.


STATISTICS OF CHARGES LAID UNDER SECTION 212 AND 213 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Forreslall: During each of the past 10 years, how many charges have been laid under Sections 212 and 213 of the Criminal Code of Canada, and with what results?


Mr. Bruce Howard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: The Dominion Bureau of Statistics reports that: Separate information on charges laid under Section 212 of the Criminal Code (counselling or aiding suicide) is not available as it is grouped with other sections of the Criminal Code. DBS does not have data on the number of charges laid under Section 213 of the Criminal Code (Suicide, attempt to commit), but the following table does provide data on the number of convictions for the years 1958 to 1967 inclusive;
Number of Convictions under Section 213 of the Criminal Code of Canada
Year	Total	Fine	Suspended Sentence		Gaol	Other Dis- position
			With Prob.	Without Prob.		
1967	440	59	281	59	40	11966	414	36	156	148	74	-1965	383	36	121	159	67	-1964	298	26	91	130	51	-1963	276	31	111	93	41	-1962	241	25	84	73	59	-1961	207	14	75	73	45	-1960	207	23	78	72	34	-1959	189	23	61	53	52	-1958	267	75	77	59	56	-


DEPARTMENT OF REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION-EMPLOYMENT OF MR. JACQUES VEZEAU
Mr. Caouelle: Is Mr. Jacques Vezeau, from Rouyn, employed in the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, and (a) if so (i) from what date (ii) what is his salary (b) if not (i) does he work in the Public Service (ii) in what department (iii) what is his title (iv) from what date (v) what is his salary?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: 1. Since international air fares come under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Transport Commission, the matter has been referred to the Minister of Transport.


James Alexander Jerome: The Government advises as follows: No. (a) (i) not applicable; (ii) not applicable, (b) (i) No; (ii) not applicable; (iii) not applicable; (iv) not applicable; (v) not applicable.

March 24, 1971


RECRUITMENT OF ARCHITECTURAL AND OTHER PROFESSIONAL GRADUATES IN FRANCE
Mr. McCleave: 1.	Did the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development recently send one or more of its officers to France to recruit graduates of the architectural and other professions and, if so (a) who went abroad (b) how long were these trips (c) what were the results?
2.	Were attempts made to recruit Canadian professionals before such recruitment and with what results?
3.	Is this recruitment program part of a two million dollar plan for Francophone recruitment?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: 1 am informed by the Public Service Commission as follows:
1.	Yes. (a) J. E. Savage, Assistant Director, and J. Dalibard, Chief Restoration Architect, Technical Services Branch, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, (b) J. E. Savage, two weeks. J. Dalibard, three and one half weeks, (c) Contacts were established with officials of the Government of France and officials and members of the Compagnie des Architectes en Chef des Monuments Historiques to facilitate the temporary employment by Canada of Architects specially trained and skilled in the restoration of French period structures, to meet the program demands of the National and Historic Parks Service.
2.	Yes, without success.
3.	No.


STUDENT EMPLOYMENT EUROPE
Mr. Peddle: 1.	To the knowledge of the government, have the activities of the organization known as SEE (Student Employment Europe) ceased and, if so, for what reason?
2.	With regard to the investigation into the activities of this organization as referred to by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration at page 1761 of Hansard, December 4, 1970 (a) who were the principals of the organization (b) how many applications for summer employment were received by this organization from Canadian students (c) what was the total amount of money received by SEE in respect of these applications (d) was any attempt made by the government to see that refunds were made to the students concerned (e) in the final analysis, were the activities of SEE regarded as being illegal and, if so, what action was taken against the principals of the organization?


Hon. Oiio E. Lang (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: To the knowledge of the Department of Manpower and Immigration, the following applies: 1. In a statement to the House on December 4, 1970 the Minister indicated that investigations were being made in regard to this organization and that it had no official connection whatever with the government and indeed had no official means of assuring placement of the students abroad. This is still the the situation. The activities of the organization known as SEE (Student Employment Europe) have not ceased despite assurances given to officials of the Department that the organization was ceasing operations.
Questions
2(a) A News Release issued in October, 1970 by SEE was over the signature of a Mrs. Mary Ricard. It is also known that a Mr. Jens T. Wahl has acted on behalf of the organization both in Canada and with the Central Labour Office in Germany. The German authorities have advised that they cannot entertain applications for student summer employment from SEE or any other private, non-governmental body, (b) This information is not available, (c) This information is not available, (d) The reply to this question must await results of the investigations, (e) The reply to this question must await results of the investigations.


ASIAN DEVELOPMENT BANK-CANADA'S SUBSCRIPTION
Mr. Robinson: 1.	What has been Canada's contribution to the Asian Development Bank since its inception?
2.	What has been the contribution of each of the 19 Asian members to the Asian Development Bank since it was set up?
3.	What has been the contribution of each of the 13 non-Asian members of the Asian Development Bank for each year since its inception?


Mr. Andre Ouellel (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: 1. Canada's subscription to the capital stock of the Asian Development Bank is US $25 million, one-half of which is paid in and one-half callable. Canada has also pledged the equivalent of US $25 million to the Bank's multipurpose Special Fund and US $200,000 to the Bank's Technical Assistance Special Fund. Of these amounts, all of the technical assistance contribution and US $15 million of the Multipurpose contribution has been to date made available to the Bank.
2.	Subscriptions to the capital stock of the Bank by each of the 21 regional members of the ADB are shown below. One-half of each subscription is callable and one-half is paid in. All figures are in millions of US dollars.
Afghanistan	4.78	Laos	.42Australia	85.0	Malaysia	20.0Cambodia	3.5	Nepal	2.16Ceylon	8.52	New Zealand	22.56China, Rep. of	16.0	Pakistan	32.0Fiji	1.0	Philippines	35.0Hong Kong	8.0	Singapore	5.0India	93.0	Thailand	20.0Indonesia	25.0	Vietnam, Rep. of	12.0Japan	200.0	Western Samoa	.06Korea, Rep. of	30.0	
In addition the following regional countries have made contributions in the following amounts to the consolidated Special Funds of the Bank.
Australia	US $10 million
India	US $26,667
Japan	US $71,314 million
New Zealand US $168,000 Pakistan	US $42,000
3.	Subscriptions to the capital Stock of the Bank by each of the 14 non-regional members of the ADB are

March 24, 1971
Questions
shown below. One-half of each subscription is callable and one-half is paid in. Each subscription was paid in five equal annual instalments between 1967 and 1971. All figures are in millions of US dollars.
Australia	5.0	Italy	20.0Belgium	5.0	Netherlands	11.0Canada	25.0	Norway	5.0Denmark	5.0	Sweden	5.0Finland	5.0	Switzerland	5.0France	25.0	United Kingdom	30.0Germany, Fed. Rep. of	34.0	United States	200.0
In addition the following countries, Canada excluded, have made contributions in the following amounts to the consolidated Special Funds of the Bank. These contributions are not made on an annual basis but are voluntary and vary considerably in payment terms.
Denmark
Finland
Germany, Fed. Rep. of Netherlands Switzerland United Kingdom United States
US$ 2,300,000 US $	108,173
US $	86,137
US$ 2,237,568 US $	200,000


US $14,518,434 US $ 1,250,000 ATOMIC ENERGY-DOUGLAS POINT NUCLEAR POWER PROJECT
Mr. Coaies: 1 Was a decision taken by the federal government or AECL to undertake construction of CANDU at Douglas Point and, if so (a) on what date (b) what was the estimated cost of construction of this plant at that time (c) what was the estimated date of completion?
2.	Did the federal government or AECL negotiate an arrangement with Ontario Hydro for the take-over of the Douglas Point plant and, if so (a) what were the original terms of that agreement (b) what was the proposed date of take-over (c) does such an agreement still exist between the federal government or AECL and Ontario Hydro and, if so, what are the terms of the present agreement?
3.	On what date was the construction of CANDU completed and at what cost?
4.	Has CANDU become fully operational as yet and, if not, for what reason?
5.	What is the present complement of employees at the Douglas Point plant and what will be the estimated payroll cost for the fiscal year 1970-71?
6.	Has electrical energy been sold to Ontario Hydro that has been generated by CANDU and, if so (a) how much was sold in 1970 (b) at what revenue to AECL or the federal government (c) what was the total production of energy from this plant during 1970?
7.	(a) On what date does AECL or the federal government expect CANDU to become fully operational (b) will it then be sold to Ontario Hydro and, if so (i) what is the estimated selling price (ii) what will be the estimated loss to AECL or the federal government from the sale of this property?


John James Greene: Atomic Energy of Canada Limited reports as follows:
1.	Yes. (a) In June 1959, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited was authorized by the Federal Government to proceed with the construction of the CANDU nuclear
plant which later became the Douglas Point Nuclear Power Project, (b) $81,507,000. (c) Construction completion in 1964. Operational service in 1965.
2.	Yes. (a) The plant is owned by Atomic Energy of Canada Limited and delivers energy to the Hydro-Electric Power Commission of Ontario. The Commission provided the site and the interconnection with its southern system. The Commission operates the station and purchases the energy delivered at the same rate it pays for energy from interconnected systems. When the plant has established itself as a dependable generating unit, the Commission will purchase it from Atomic Energy of Canada Limited at a price calculated to render the cost of energy produced by it equal to that of energy from a reference fossil-fired conventional thermal generating unit in the Commission's system, (b) See (a), (c) Yes, the original agreement remains in force.
3.	November, 1966. $89,637,000.
4.	Yes.
5.	Ontario Hydro operates the station for Atomic Energy of Canada Limited. Present complement of employees is 208. Ontario Hydro paid their employees approximately $2,600,000.
6.	Yes. (a) Approximately 830 million kilowatt hours, (b) Approximately $4,900,000. (c) 915.2 million kilowatt hours. The difference between (a) and (c) represents energy consumed in the station.
7.	(a) It became fully operational in September 1968. (b) See answer to 2. (a), (i) See answer to 2. (a), (ii) The difference between the cost of construction and the selling price cannot be determined until the sale is negotiated. Such difference is not a "loss" in the sense the word is used in the question; it represents the cost of developing a prototype reactor.


CANADIAN INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
Mr. Coales: 1.	On what date was Paul Gerin-Lajoie appointed Director of C.I.D.A. and what is his present salary?
2.	Where is the office of C.I.D.A. located (a) what floor space has been leased (b) from whom (c) for what period of time (d) at what annual cost?
3.	Does C.I.D.A. provide a limousine and chauffeur for the Director and, if so (a) what type of motor vehicle is provided (b) what did it cost (c) what is the name of the chauffeur (d) what is his annual salary?
4.	Did the Department of Public Works renovate the offices of the Director of C.I.D.A. and his personnel and, if so (a) what method was used for the renovation (b) at what cost?


James Alexander Jerome: I am informed by the Department of External Affairs and the Department of Public Works as follows: 1. The date of appointment is November 15, 1970. The salary range of the President of CIDA is $35,000 to $39,000.
2. The offices of CIDA are located in the Jackson Building, corner of Bank and Slater Streets, Ottawa, with the Finance Division being located in the Nicol Building,
[Mr. Ouellet.l
March 24, 1971

331 Cooper Street, Ottawa. Jackson Building (Crown-owned) (a), (b), (c) and (d) Not applicable, (a) Floor space leased, Nicol Building, 9,700 sq. ft. (b) From whom, Nicol Building, rented from W. M. Nicol of Nicol, O'Conner & Kealey, Barristers, (c) For what period of time Nicol Building, Fall of 1971. (d) At what annual cost, Nicol Building, $4.10 per sq. ft.; that is, 9,700 sq. ft. at $4.10 per sq. ft. for a total of $39,770.
3.	CIDA does not provide a limousine and a chauffeur for the President, (a), (b), (c), (d) not applicable. The President does, however, utilize, for business purposes as required, a personally owned vehicle of an employee and the services of the employee as driver, with the employee being reimbursed for mileage in accordance with mileage rate rules.
4.	The Department of Public Works did not actually renovate the offices of the President of CIDA and of certain of his immediate staff, but rather effected alterations to offices, the initial construction of which was nearing completion at- the time the President took office, (a) Work carried out by contract, (b) Total cost of renovations was $3,135.


FINANCIAL AID FOR PRODUCTION OF &quot;PILE OU FACE&quot;
Mr. Valade: 1.	Has Canada Council or any government agency given grants or financial aid for the production of Pile ou Face, a film now being shown in some Montreal theatres and, if so, how much money was contributed?
2.	Has this film any artistic value?
3.	What criteria justified such assistance?


Gérard Pelletier: 1. Yes, the Canadian Film Development Corporation. I am informed by the Canadian Film Development Corporation that- the amount of each individual loan and investment in Canadian feature film production is not made public in order to protect the financial position of the applicant in his negotiations with possible purchasers of the completed film.
2. and 3. In the opinion of the Canadian Film Development Corporation, the feature film, Pile ou Face, conforms to the requirements of section 10(2)(a) of the Canadian Film Development Corporation Act of "significant Canadian creative, artistic and technical content", in addition to meeting requirements concerning financing and distribution.


CANADIAN UNITARIAN AID TO VIETNAM
Mr. Brewin: 1.	Has the government received a request from the Canadian Unitarian Aid to Vietnam to grant an export permit to ship medical equipment for aid to civilians in North Vietnam?
2.	Was a permit for the shipment of such goods issued on May 13, 1969 for goods identified as being of Canadian and German origin and, if so, what was the value of the goods permitted to be shipped under such permit?
3.	Was a permit refused to the said organization for the export to North Vietnam of medical equipment of American manufacture and. if so (a) was it refused at the request of any
Questions
American authorities (b) what American officials made the request (c) was the request in writing (d) what was the ground for such a request?
4.	Has the government made representations to the appropriate American authorities that the refusal to permit the shipment of medical supplies for civilians is in contravention of Article 23 of the provisions of the Geneva Convention which provides that- "Each high contracting party shall allow the free passage of all consignments of medical and hospital stores intended only for civilians of another high contracting party even if the latter is its adversary"?
5.	Has the government made representations to the appropriate American authorities that the refusal to ship these American goods is contrary to the spirit if not the letter of the Geneva Convention and to humanitarian principles and, if so, what has been the reply of the American authorities?
6.	Has the government granted or refused any permits to export medical supplies to South Vietnam?


Bruce Andrew Thomas Howard: 1. Yes.
2.	Yes. It is the government's policy not to disclose details of an individual export permit application.
3.	Yes. (a) No. (b) (c) (d) Not applicable.
4.	No.
5.	No.
6.	Granted, yes; refused, no.


INCOME DERIVED FROM COMPUTER SERVICES
Mr. Robinson: What income, if any, is derived from the computer services provided by the Department of Communications (a) from other departments (b) from sale or services to industry (c) to provincial government departments (d) to municipalities?


Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Minister of Communications):: (a) to (d) None.


* MANPOWER-STUDY OF EMPLOYMENT OF UNIVERSITY STUDENTS
Mr. Nystrom: 1.	Was a survey study of employment of university students released by the Department of Manpower and Immigration on February 4, 1971 and, if so, was any consideration given to the inclusion in the study of students who did not return to university because they were unable to find summer employment?
2.	Was there any indication that any of the students, who were unsuccessful in seeking employment, stated they had not sought employment?
3.	What was the population of students in accredited universities in the academic year 1969-1970?
4.	Was the survey based on oral or written questions?
5.	What was the response rate?
6 Would the government be prepared to Table the questionnaire and an outline of the method used?


Mr.   Chas. L. Caccia@Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration: Mr. Speaker, in view of the extent of the reply, may I ask leave of the House to have the reply considered as recorded in Hansard at this point?


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

March 24, 1971
Orders for Returns
[Editor's Note: The answer referred to above is as follows:]
1.	Preliminary results of a study of the employment of post-secondary students in the summer of 1970 were released by the Department of Manpower and Immigration on February 4, 1971. The survey was carried out at the time students registered for classes in the fall. Because of the method used, the survey did not include students who, for one reason or another, including their inability to find summer employment, did not return or proceed to post-secondary education.
2.	The survey established that all but 10 per cent of the students had sought paid work. Of the 90 per cent who sought work, 89 per cent found employment some time during the summer.
3.	The population of students in universities in 1969/70 is estimated by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics as 312,000.
4.	The survey was based on written questions.
5.	The survey was completed by approximately 17,000 students at 54 universities, community colleges and teachers colleges across Canada. It was based on a scientifically selected sample, within which the response rate averaged 75 per cent.
6.	A full report of the survey including an outline of the method used and a copy of the questionnaire will be ready in a few weeks' time.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Is the Food and Drug Directorate of the Department of National Health and Welfare now growing marijuana and, if so, where and in what quantities?
2.	Where were the original seeds for the marijuana crop acquired and at what cost?
3 What criteria have been set up by the Food and Drug Directorate regarding the supply of marijuana and hashish to Canadian researchers?
4.	What applications have been received by the Food and Drug Directorate regarding marijuana and hashish research in Canada, and how many have been supplied with marijuana by the Food and Drug Directorate?
Return tabled.


FEDERAL CONTRIBUTION TO &quot;POOR PEOPLE'S CONVENTION&quot; IN TORONTO
Mr. McIntosh: 1.	What was the total federal contribution to the recent "Poor People's Convention" in Toronto?
2.	Under what policy item and in what department was this contribution authorized?
3.	What future federal commitments to this group have been authorized?
4.	What organizations took part in this convention?
5.	In each case, what is the accredited membership?
6	(a) Who was the chairman of the convention (b) was the
person appointed or elected and, in either case, by whom?
Return tabled.


STE. SCHOLASTIQUE-DISPOSAL OF CROWN BUILDINGS ON SITE OF INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
Mr. Valade: 1.	Has Crown Assets Disposal Corporation disposed of all Crown buildings located on the site of the international airport in Ste. Scholastique under tender call of October 28, 1970, file number L.B. 25224 and, if so, on what conditions?
2.	What are the names and addresses of the buyers?
3.	What amount was paid by each buyer?
4.	Has CADC made special agreements with any of the buyers?
Return tabled.


COST TO CANADA TO SUPPORT UNITED NATIONS
Mr. Robinson: What was the cost to Canada to support the United Nations for each year since its inception?
Return tabled.


SASKATCHEWAN-PFAA PERSONNEL
Mr. Thomson: 1.	What are the names and addresses of all persons in Saskatchewan employed by PFAA?
2.	What was the amount in 1970 paid to each in (a) salary (b) expenses?
Return tabled.


Mr. McCleave:: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, since I have on the order paper starred question 1178 I should like to make it clear that it refers only to flood relief and not to any other kind of relief.


Mr. Coaies:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. Unfortunately, it is not a new question of privilege; it is one I have raised before on this particular occasion with regard to question No. 12 which stands in my name and has stood on the order paper since October 8 in this session. On the previous occasion when I rose I brought to your attention the great problem that I face as a result of not receiving a reply to this question before now. I pointed out to Your Honour that this question was on the order paper in the last session of Parliament. I have with me today the order paper for October 5, 1970, from the last session of Parliament, and I point out to you that starred question No. 1203 is exactly the same as starred question No. 12. A point I must raise, which gives me great difficulty, is that, for instance, my question No. 43 is a similar question dealing with the same subject matter but for a later period of time.
The question relates to the Jetstar which is used by the Prime Minister, and it asks specific questions about its use. The Jetstar was purchased by the government of Canada with the taxpayers' money. It is used by the Prime Minister for specific purposes. There is no argument with that. But I do believe that the information I am asking for is legitimate information. It is information which should be made available to the people of this country in view of the fact that their tax dollars are
March 24, 1971

involved in both the purchase of the aircraft and its use. I see no reason why I have had to wait since February 13, 1970, to get this information. If this question is not answered, I will have to reach the conclusion that the Prime Minister and the government have decided that this information will not be made available to the public. It is the taxpayers' money that is being spent but, to hell with the taxpayers, they are not going to find out what he is doing. I think it is about time that my questions in this regard were answered.


Mr. Trudeau:: Mr. Speaker, there is no intention on the part of the government to withhold information here. I have seen a draft of the answer some weeks ago, and it must be in the process of preparation now for tabling in the House. The fact is that this kind of information does require a great number of man-hours to procure it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I hope you will permit me, Mr. Speaker, when I table the answer, to indicate how many thousands of dollars of taxpayers' money have been needed to answer it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has made his point. He rose on a question of privilege and the Chair has heard him. The right hon. Prime Minister has replied, and I doubt whether there is any point in pursuing a debate on the matter. The Chair will attempt to take a personal interest in the question and in the provision of a reply. Hon. members know that it is beyond the purview of the Speaker's responsibility to get the Chair involved in the filing of returns or the supplying of answers to written questions except when this might be helpful to hon. members. I will be glad to have a look at the matter a little more closely on behalf of the hon. member.


Robert Carman Coates: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order please. Is the hon. member rising on another question of privilege? It should not be on the first one, because if the hon. member does that again, where do we go from there? A reply was given by the Prime Minister who is personally involved. It was quite in order for the Prime Minister to make that reply. If the hon. member now rises on another question of privilege, I wonder how long this will go on.


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, what upsets me is that the Prime Minister has implied that I am costing the taxpayers money-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Carman Coates: -by exercising my right as a Member of Parliament to ask for information which should be made available to the taxpayers. I will not take that from him.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
Motions for Papers



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

Mr. Albert Bechard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, notices of motions for the production of papers Nos. 43, 197 and 202 are acceptable to the government.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that Notices of Motions 43, 197 and 202 be deemed to have been adopted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



WHITE PAPER ON UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 43-Mr. Broadbent:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all representations received by the Government of Canada regarding the White Paper on Unemployment Insurance.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 197-Mr. Burton:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the Government of Canada and the Government of Saskatchewan concerning the loan fund available for provinces announced by the Minister of Finance in his Budget Address on December 3, 1970.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 202-Mr. Burton:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the following documents with respect to Order in Council 1971-303, dated February 16, 1971 (a) the plan of economic expansion and social adjustment referred to in the Order in Council (b) the map showing the area comprised in the special area established under the said Order in Council.
Motion agreed to.
Albert Béchard: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call notices of motions Nos. 66, 67 and 68?
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining notices of motions be allowed to stand.

1965 CONSULTANT REPORT, EFFECTIVE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM FOR EQUIPMENT ACQUISITION PRODUCTS
Motion No. 66-Mr. Skoberg:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the consultant report by Peat, Marwick, Livingstone and Company, Boston, USA, undertaken for the Department of Defence Production in 1965 on the development of an effective management system

March 24, 1971
Motions for Papers
for equipment acquisition products, mentioned in answer to Question Number 1,323 of the 1st Session of this Parliament.


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, the report referred to in this motion was originally commissioned by the former Department of Defence Production. It was a working document for internal use and as such it is considered confidential and not in the public interest to table. In the circumstances I hope that the hon. member will be willing to withdraw the motion.


Mr. Skoberg:: It appears to me that Members of Parliament should be aware of this type of privileged material, and I call for the vote.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.



CONSULTANT REPORT, EFFECTIVE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM FOR EQUIPMENT ACQUISITION PRODUCTS

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 67-Mr. Skoberg:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the consultant report by Peat, Marwick, Livingstone and Company, Boston, USA, undertaken for the Department of Defence Production on the development of an effective management system for equipment acquisition products, mentioned in answer to Question Number 1,323 of the 1st session of this Parliament.
James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, the answer is the same as the one just given in reply to motion for production of papers No. 66, and I therefore again ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


John Leroy Skoberg: My response is the same, Mr. Speaker.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.



CONSULTANT REPORT ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF DEPARTMENTAL PLANNING, PROGRAMMING AND BUDGETING SYSTEM

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 68-Mr. Skoberg:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the consultant report by Peat, Marwick, Livingstone and Company, Boston, USA, undertaken for the Department of Defence Production on the development of departmental planning, programming and budgeting system, as mentioned in answer to Question Number 1,323 of the 1st session of this Parliament.
James Armstrong Richardson: The answer is the same and the same request is made.


John Leroy Skoberg: Surely we should know what the departmental planning is all about, and I would like to call for the vote.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate. Shall the remaining notices of motions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the right hon. Prime Minister whether the views expressed by the Secretary of State in a book concerning the crisis in Quebec last October represent the views of the government?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I understand that on the first page of the book the Secretary of State makes it clear that the views expressed are his own and not those of the government.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: When did he resign?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Prime Minister specifically whether the view expressed in the book that the government of Canada was not worried about a popular insurrection in Quebec at that time represents the view of the government?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I do not know what the hon. member is quoting from. I have no knowledge that that is in the book, not having read the book, but I will look at any reference that the hon. member gives me and then I will be able to tell him whether or not it is the government policy.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. In view of the fact that ministers seem to be quite free within the government to give their own views I should like to ask the minister whether he intends to publish his views on the crisis?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I always believe in going to the horse's mouth.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: The minister better not take that too far or I will refer to him in another sense. I ask the Secretary of State whether or not the view he expresses in this booklet or book, as the case may be, that the government had no fear of insurrection last October was the view he held then or is it the result of thought since the occasion?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The minister may wish to reply but certainly I think this question is not in order. The right hon. gentleman refers to a book published by a member of the cabinet and asks whether views expressed in the book were held by the minister some months ago. I do not think a question asked in those terms is quite acceptable.
March 24, 1971


John George Diefenbaker: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. While the matter is before you for consideration-and in no way do I anticipate your decision-may I say that we have seen Parliament tramped on again by this government and its basic rights destroyed.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: Ministers sit over there and refuse to answer questions. When questions are asked concerning their public statements-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John George Diefenbaker: -answers are denied.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John George Diefenbaker: Where is this House of Commons
going?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to hon. members that in this instance at least it is not the minister who refuses to reply. He seemed to be very anxious to reply but I did not think the question was the type of question to which the minister should be allowed to reply. This is not the minister's responsibility but the Chair's responsibility, and I am prepared to accept it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Georges Valade (Sainle-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the Minister of Justice.
Does he intend to read the book the Secretary of State is releasing today, and will he tell us whether or not the writings of his colleague fit in with the minister's policy concerning the October crisis.



VIEWS EXPRESSED ON QUEBEC CRISIS IN BOOK BY SECRETARY OF STATE-EFFECT ON CABINET SECRECY

Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Secretary of State.
Would he tell us how he can, in a book, separate his views as a minister of the Crown from his personal views when he could endanger and discredit the oath of office by all cabinet members?


Gérard Pelletier: Exactly in the same way, Mr. Speaker, as any minister and even any member of the House does, when making a speech.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to hon. members that not much purpose would be served in continuing this line of questioning. It seems to me there are very important matters to be considered and serious questions to be asked. All this I am sure is welcome publicity for the minister's book, but I think we should really proceed to another subject.
Inquiries of the Ministry REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION



DEVELOPMENT OF MORE EFFECTIVE INCENTIVE PROGRAMS IN LIGHT OF CRITICISMS

Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. In view of the many concerns expressed recently about the ineffectiveness of the regional development incentive program, including the view expressed by Dr. Solandt, Chairman of the Science Council of Canada, that "the record of regional industrial development in Canada was one of disaster after disaster" and that "they're not economically sound," I should like to ask the minister whether the government is conducting a special study and review of its regional development program in order to develop programs which will be more effective?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether the hon. member implies that the application which is being made by a pulp mill in Regina should not be accepted because the program is not efficient.


John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, I shall repeat my question. In view of the criticisms, including that of Dr. Solandt, Chairman of the Science Council of Canada, is the government reviewing its programs in order to develop better alternatives and is it holding any consultations with people such as Dr. Solandt, Chairman of the Science Council, in order to develop a sound program which will be co-ordinated with science policy?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I have read a great many opinions on the department, and on regional development, expressed by members of all political parties, and by scientists, several of them contradictory. I am not in a position to give an opinion on the view brought up this afternoon in the House.



INCENTIVE GRANTS TO FOREIGN-CONTROLLED FIRMS- POSSIBLE POLICY CHANGE

John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, with regard to a specific aspect of policy, I should like to ask whether the minister is reconsidering his policy of making incentive grants to foreign-controlled firms on the same basis as to Canadian-controlled concerns and does he anticipate that there will be any policy changes in this regard for his department when the government announces its policy on foreign ownership?


Jean Marchand: No, Mr. Speaker. When an American company, such as Boeing, seeks to settle in Manitoba, we grant authorization and give the same subsidy in Winnipeg as in Gaspe or in the Maritimes.

March 24, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry STE. SCHOLASTIQUE AIRPORT-ESTABLISHMENT OF SPECIAL AREA


Mr. Roch La Salle (Jolieile):: Mr. Speaker, I want to direct a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
As regards the Ste. Scholastique airport construction project, would the minister be in a position today to state when he is going to announce the establishment of a special zone which is needed for the implementation of this project?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, there will be a special zone north of Montreal, and this will be announced in the very near future.


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to me we are moving away from the original question, but the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Waterloo on a supplementary.



CONSULTATION WITH PROVINCES TO PREVENT MOVEMENT OF FIRMS FROM ONE PROVINCE TO ANOTHER

Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Has his attention been drawn to the grant made by the Ontario Development Corporation to a Quebec-based company to get that company to move from Quebec? My question to the minister is whether he is consulting with the provinces to make sure that when there is competition between provinces they do not obviate whatever work is being done and that one province does not work against another, with perhaps both of them working against federal policy?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, we are taking all the precautions that are humanly possible to prevent these incentives, which are public money, from being used by industries for moving from one province to another. Before granting an incentive, we make sure that there exists an adequate market for the additional production and for instance we do not accept that a new industry use this money obtained from the government to ruin or weaken another industry.


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. First I suggest to hon. members that we are leapfrogging from supplementary to supplementary over different subjects. I will recognize the hon. member for Waterloo on a supplementary and then the hon. member for Lotbiniere.


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. He may not have understood that portion of the question I directed to him when I asked him whether he is holding consultations with the provinces to make sure that this kind of working against each other does not take place?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, there may be consultations with the provinces in some instances, but usually these things are discussed directly with the officials of the industries concerned in the light of the information we have on hand about the area involved.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. Andre Foriin (Lolbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
In view of protests received from the Indians, is the minister ready to assure us that the Coqualeetza Indian hospital and the land adjoining it in British Columbia will be used to meet the needs and care of the Indian people in the area in accordance with their best interest and requests?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, we are studying this proposal. Until now the Indians have made three different proposals; we are studying the consequences and if, as we have told them, it is in their best interest we will give them the building in question. We must however take into account the financial means of the government and if it proves impossible to finance this proposal, we will have to look for an alternative.


André-Gilles Fortin: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to ask the minister whether there has been an advance discussion or agreement between his department and the Department of National Health and Welfare with regard to this decision of taking away this hospital for Indians?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, this hospital belongs to the Canadian government and not to the Indians. We gave the Indians certains sums of money to enable them to conduct studies on the matter. We are considering their suggestions and as I said we will accept only those which are sensible. We are not however in a position to give an answer at this time.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question.
Can the hon. minister assure the House that the government will implement the program that was submitted to him by the Indians in this area, especially those programs concerning family and social services as well as the development of Indian arts?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, there are programs of this nature in British Columbia as elsewhere. As to whether they should be located in Chilliwack, this is another aspect of the problem, which as a matter of fact we are examining. These programs need not be located in this community, but they might be.

March 24, 1971



FINANCE


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hasiings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance who is supposed to be in the House today, but as he is not here I will address it to the acting minister and ask him to pass it on to the minister. As the interest rates that are being charged on Industrial Development Bank loans are considerably higher than on comparable commercial loans, will the minister strongly urge the Governor of the Bank of Canada, which has jurisdiction over the operations of the IDB, to have that body lower its interest rates by the same amount commercial rates have been lowered recently, so that the IDB can continue to do the good job that it was established to do for industry?


Hon. Herb Gray (Acting Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to draw the hon. member's question to the attention of my colleague who, I am sure, will want to reply in his usual effective and responsive manner.
# * *



FISHERIES


Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. In light of the fact that the Minister of Natural Resources of the province of Saskatchewan has indicated that fishing in the Saskatchewan River system will not be allowed this year because of mercury contamination-


John George Diefenbaker: Except in Diefenbaker Lake.


Stanley James Korchinski: -will there be a program of compensation for fishermen in effect this year?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: No, Mr. Speaker, but a retraining program will be.


Stanley James Korchinski: May I ask the minister whether an agreement is already in effect for a retraining program?


John (Jack) Davis: No, but it is under active consideration.



CITIZENSHIP


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister without Portfolio responsible for citizenship. Has information been sent out from the minister's department telling the judges of the citizenship courts that they are to be dismissed shortly and that a whole new arrangement in that regard will be brought into effect?


Hon. Robert Stanbury (Minister without Portfolio):: No,
Mr. Speaker.
Inquiries of the Ministry NATIONAL PARKS



POSTPONEMENT OF LAND RENTAL INCREASES

Mr. Allen B. Sulatycky (Rocky Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Next week increased land rentals in national parks will become due with respect to many leases. In view of the fact that the reports of the appraisal appeal boards in each park have not yet been made public, can the minister advise whether a decision has been made to postpone these increases?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I am in a position to inform the hon. member that those increases will not come into effect before April 1, but I cannot assure him that they will not come into effect later this year. However, I will inform the hon. member in case they should be put into effect before the end of this year,



PROPOSED MACKENZIE VALLEY PIPELINE-NEGOTIATIONS WITH UNITED STATES IN 1970

Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs arising from a report from Washington to the effect that in February, 1970, President Nixon instructed the Department of State of the United States government to enter into negotiations with the government of Canada regarding the construction of a pipeline from Alaska through Canada to the United States. May I ask the minister if any such negotiations were entered into by the United States and Canadian governments, either through himself or through any other minister of the Canadian government?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Not to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources if any such negotiations were carried on in 1970?


John James Greene: Not to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker, although inferentially in the oil discussions which we had with them in that period a pipeline was talked about from time to time, but no specific discussion vis-a-vis the pipeline itself were entered into.



REGULATIONS TO BRING CANADIAN OIL ENTERING PIPELINES UNDER NATIONAL ENERGY BOARD

Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In
view of the fact that the pipeline in question, according to the minister's own statement, will be handling Canadian oil, I want to ask him a question about Part VI, section 87 of the National Energy Board Act. Since this was proclaimed last May 7 last but the regulations deal only with gasoline, is it the minister's intention to pass regulations dealing with oil entering pipelines to bring

March 24, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
this operation under the jurisdiction of the National Energy Board?
Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Energy, Mines and
Resources): At the present time there is no such intention. The authority is there if required. The declaration in regard to gasoline was made in order to render the national oil policy effective, which policy was commencing to break down by reason of the flow of products across the Ottawa valley line. In respect of oil, in the opinion of the government that authority has not been needed to date to make the national oil policy work.



PROPOSED MACKENZIE VALLEY PIPELINE-ECOLOGICAL STUDIES-PUBLICATION OF RESULTS

Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Is he now in a position to table the results of research pertaining to environmental problems arising from any pipeline project down the Mackenzie Valley?
Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Energy, Mines and
Resources): Mr. Speaker, as I think I informed the House the other day, both in the debate and in answer to questions from hon. gentlemen opposite, research is going on in many areas-in the private sector, the universities and within government. Whether or not we could effectively table the results of all these researches I am not sure, but we will certainly consider the situation. Certainly a broad spectrum of knowledge on the part of the public is required on this entire issue.



PROPOSED MACKENZIE VALLEY PIPELINE-CONSULTATIONS WITH NATIVE PEOPLE

Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Have any consultations between the officials of his department and the native Indian peoples in the north been carried on with respect to the construction of a pipeline through Canada, and are any further such consultations planned?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we try to keep the Indian and Eskimo people in the North informed of what takes place within certain study committees. Over the past year, representatives of these citizens of the North have participated, with government officials, in some research projects, particularly in the Old Crow and Banks Island regions.
We have asked officials of the industry to include in their teams Eskimo or Indian advisers, and they will carry on with this practice in the future.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I repeat the last half of my supplementary question. Are any further such consultations being planned with respect to the construction of this pipeline?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we are trying every day to keep them up to date and I can assure the hon. member that they will be kept informed in the weeks and months to come.



PROPOSED MACKENZIE VALLEY PIPELINE-ECONOMIC COMPETITIVENESS WITH TAPS-POSITION OF ALASKA PRODUCERS

Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, as a result of the discussions the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has had with the representatives of the companies interested in Alaska oil, is he in a position to tell the House whether a pipeline through Canada, down the Mackenzie valley, is regarded by the Alaska oil producers as being as economically competitive in delivering oil to the Pacific northwest and the mid-western United States as the Alaska pipeline and water route, and if they are not yet convinced that it would be competitive, does the minister consider that he is in a position to convince them that it is economically competitive?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and myself and subsequently other ministers had a very useful meeting today with the presidents of five of the companies who have holdings in the Prudhoe Bay area. We discussed the economics of the various lines. It would appear that the economics of delivery to the west coast are preferably by the Valdez line, but the economics of delivery to the Chicago area may well be preferable by way of an all-Canadian line. According to information I have from our own officials, there would be an advantage of 30 cents a barrel in the latter case.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I shall, of course, recognize the Leader of the Opposition on a supplementary but I will take this opportunity to deliver my usual admonition perhaps a little earlier. I invite hon. members to ask short questions and ministers to give brief answers, with as few supplementaries as possible, in order to give more hon. members the opportunity to ask questions.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I put a supplementary question to the minister. As a result of his discussions, is the minister in a position to tell us how long the representatives of the Alaska oil companies are prepared to wait before they feel it necessary to make a choice with regard to the route?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, as I understand it the position is that a decision was very clearly made by the oil companies to go by the Valdez line and then by the marine route along the west coast markets, but by reason of the delays caused by various governmental agencies in the United States, by environmental groups and others, that decision has not been implemented. All we are doing is exploring the possibilities of a review of that decision and assuring that Canada proceeds as rapidly as possible

March 24, 1971

to make its scientific, ecological and economic surveys so that we are prepared in this regard.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Battleford-Kindersley.



PROPOSED MACKENZIE VALLEY PIPELINE-TYPE OF ORGANIZATION

Mr. Rod Thomson (Battleford-Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In his studies regarding a possible Mackenzie Valley pipeline, is the minister considering a Panarctic type of business vehicle for its installation and operation?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we have not yet taken any such decision, since the matter is still under consideration.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Mr. Pierre De Bane (Matane):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
Since hundreds of Quebecers have complained that they have lost money in the operations of the Inspiration et Succes company and since the Quebec government has advised the public not to invest in that chain system, can the minister tell the House whether he is investigating the matter?

Is the minister in a position to tell the House and the public whether his officials have any definite ideas on the chain system, from the consumer point of view?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I am not familiar with this particular company and will determine the facts from the Minister of Justice of Quebec in order to decide whether it would be appropriate to take action under some federal statute or authority. A number of pyramid-type schemes have been promoted lately, and better business bureaux and federal and provincial departments concerned with consumer affairs have warned those inexperienced in business not to invest money in them without first obtaining advice on what they are getting involved in because some of them do not show any return on an investment.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State
Inquiries of the Ministry
for External Affairs concerning the proposed nuclear tests at Amchitka which the House was told the government had protested last February. Can the minister advise whether the United States government has replied to that protest and, if so, can he indicate the nature of the reply?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as the House has been informed, we did send a note to the United States government and a reply has been received. I should like to consult the United States government, however, to determine whether they would be prepared to have their answer tabled. We have told the United States that we are prepared to table our note. If the hon. member could wait for a day or so, I shall consult the United States government and determine whether their reply can also be tabled.


INDUSTRY
John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Supply and Services. What is government policy with regard to support for a short take-off and landing aircraft program in order to stimulate the Canadian aircraft industry and provide worldwide business for it?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, that policy does not come under the Department cf Supply and Services.


John Angus MacLean: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is it the intention of the government to give orders for this particular type of aircraft on behalf of any department of government in the near future?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, the Department of Supply and Services makes purchases when requested by other government departments. We have no orders for aircraft for such a program at the present time.


NATIONAL CAPITAL
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Prime Minister concerns reports to the effect that the government of Canada is giving consideration to the expropriation of blocks in uptown Ottawa with a view to assuring the maintenance of the majesty and grandeur of the Parliament buildings and Parliament Hill. Is the Prime Minister in a position to state whether this matter is under consideration and whether commendable forward steps in this direction are being considered?

March 24, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it is not yet under consideration at cabinet level, but instruction has been given to the minister responsible to come forth with a plan for the future location of members of Parliament and parliamentary offices in premises which are not now the property of the government of Canada.


John George Diefenbaker: Is consideration being given to doing something by arrangement with the city of Ottawa so that large buildings about to be erected adjacent to Parliament Hill will be controlled in some way? If not, Parliament Hill will lose something of the greatness which nature has provided for it. Is consideration being given along that line as well as to the premises to which the right hon. gentleman referred?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I believe that this is a matter of concern for the National Capital Commission, Mr. Speaker. I must confess that I am not aware of any recent representations along these lines to the authorities of the Ottawa district. I shall gladly convey the representations of the right hon. gentleman, however, to the minister responsible for the National Capital Commission.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Henry Lalulippe (Complon):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour.
Could he tell the House whether representations were made to him in protest against the fact that under the new unemployment insurance program, a person who works 12 months of the year will earn less than one who works only 9 months, yet the latter will cost more to the government?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The
answer is no, Mr. Speaker.


FISHERIES
Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. In view of the fact that a bill has been introduced in the United States Congress to ban the killing of sea mammals, including baby seals, and to ban the importation of sealskins into the United States, will the minister, on this last day of the annual seal hunt, consider banning all future slaughter of seals?


Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingale):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to an earlier question concerning seals. It is not prompted by any anti-American feeling. Would the minister consider making an official Canadian response to United States Senator Harris of Oklahoma who is actively campaigning against a bonafide Canadian industry, and inform him to keep his elongated, American proboscis south of the border and apply his energies to the resolution of their foreign and domestic problems?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's question is in the form a recommendation or suggestion which he has to assume will be taken into account.


NATIONAL SECURITY
Martial Asselin: I should like to put a question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
I refer again to the question I put a while ago to the Secretary of State. Since the latter was a member of the cabinet during the October crisis and as such was aware of certain facts and that, as a result of the War Measures Act trials are now in process, some people have been judged, and others are awaiting their trials, how can the Prime Minister allow a minister to publish a book on such important events without first having read the book to see whether it contains facts that are only known to the cabinet?
Should the Prime Minister not read the book first, to criticize it objectively-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has put his question. I think that the House could allow the Prime Minister to answer, but I am under the impression that the question is more in the nature of an argument. At any rate, the Chair does not object to the Prime Minister answering the question.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It is an
argument based on an assumption, Mr. Speaker, and if hypothetically the minister had indeed violated his oath of office and revealed cabinet secrets, it would obviously constitute an irregularity which should be dealt with.
But as far as I know the assumption is neither verified nor verifiable.


Martial Asselin: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. [English]


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There are several hon. members who wish to ask supplementaries on this question, the hon. member for Fundy-Royal, the hon. member from Cape Breton and the hon. member for Charlevoix. There are only five minutes left in the question period. It may be unfair to hon. members, but perhaps this matter might be pursued at another time.


Mr. Fairweather:: Mr. Speaker, I have been rising constantly to ask a very serious supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.

March 24, 1971


ATOMIC ENERGY
Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. It refers to the reply he gave yesterday to an inquiry by the hon. member for Annapolis Valley on the apparent interest of Brinco into developing an uranium enrichment plant. The Prime Minister replied that there had been some correspondence on this matter and he had referred it to the appropriate minister. Could the Prime Minister or the appropriate minister say whether they have received correspondence from the province of Manitoba indicating that province's interest in providing certain facilities for the development of such a plant?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker, there has been an exchange of letters between the Premier of Manitoba and myself along these lines.


AGRICULTURE
John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the reply he gave on March 17 when he said he was prepared to meet a small, non-political, representative group of the agricultural industry concerned about Bill C-176, and in view of the difficulty the committee is now experiencing in dealing with that bill, is he still prepared to meet a group that is concerned about the bill?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that the reply I made has been quoted completely in context, but I would prefer to hear Your Honour's decision on the question of privilege raised earlier by the hon. member before indicating whether anything further should be done on this side of the House.


MANPOWER
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Since under the present rigid regulations governing manpower retraining programs the disappointment and despair of trainees is reaching crisis proportions, would the minister inform the House when he will amend the regulations so that students may take more than 52 weeks to complete their academic training, which under this program has to be completed in less than 52 weeks, in order that trainees may receive training which best suits their needs?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I would not accept the extreme words of the hon. member. It is possible, of course, for a person to be offered 52 weeks of training and 52 weeks of skill training thereafter. Our emphasis has been on attempting to improve courses within that basic guideline. We are looking at the over-all question of whether we need additional flexibility to deal with special cases, but the emphasis certainly is on improving courses within that time limit.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.
Sj! Sfc


WELFARE
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of certain criticisms and recommendations made by the National Council on Welfare with respect to welfare practices, both federal and provincial, will the minister be making a statement on this matter at an early date so that we can be assured that the recommendations of this body are being taken into consideration?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I examined the observations of the National Council on Welfare. Many of their recommendations are in process of being acted upon in one way or another through consultations which we will be having with the provinces concerning improvements in the Canada Assistance Plan.
*	* sj:


CITIZENSHIP
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the minister responsible for citizenship. Does the government intend to propose a substantial reorganization of the citizenship courts and, if so, will the minister assure the House that at the first opportunity a statement will be made as to the changes proposed?


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Mr. Speaker, if any such changes are proposed they will be announced in the House.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. Kenneth Robinson (Toronio-Lakeshore):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer

March 24, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
and Corporate Affairs. In view of the fact that the Bell Telephone Company appears to have a policy for its customers that unless they give credit information or pay a deposit of $50 in advance of service, no service will be provided regardless of how long they have been a customer of Bell, will the minister consider bringing in legislation to stop this procedure?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I presume that this matter is covered by the Canadian Transport Commission which regulates Bell Canada. However, I will check into it and determine what the facts are.


LABOUR RELATIONS
Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour.
Taking into account the present work stoppage at the Ste. Scholastique airport, and the dispute between labour unions to determine whether this work should be performed under federal or provincial jurisdiction, has the minister met the workers involved and is he able to tell us if this matter comes under the Quebec Department of Labour?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, industrial unrest or dispute in any province is subject to the provincial labour laws of the country, and the dispute in relation to the Ste. Scholastique project is no exception. Our role in the Ste. Scholastique development is simply, when calling for tenders, to include certain basic, fundamental standards as a minimum. We have no role in the dispute that may be going on between the province of Quebec and the contractors.


PROPOSED FLOODING OF SKAGIT RIVER VALLEY-APPROVAL BY INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION OF AGREEMENT FOR COMPENSATION OF CANADIAN INTERESTS
Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, may I address a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. It concerns a question I asked him on February 26 about the Skagit Valley and the approval of the International Joint Commission. The minister said that he would take the question as notice and make inquiries. Has he a reply?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I understand that a reply will be forthcoming. The administrative section responsible for that matter has moved from my department. I recently
had word from them that they are obtaining an answer. However, they are not under my immediate jurisdiction at present. I will see if I can expedite their answer.


MANPOWER
André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
We have been informed that manpower retraining courses will be completely suspended during the summer, and that this is the result of a study by his department. Is the minister able to tell us if there is such a study, and if so, will he be able to make a statement soon on motions?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I shall inquire further from the hon. member as to which studies he is referring to and perhaps investigate the matter that he has raised.


NATIONAL SECURITY
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Justice on the issue of cabinet congeniality. Now that the political situation in Quebec has apparently stabilized to the extent that ministers can write confessions on the subject of the alleged insurrection, will the minister arrange to have the Public Order (Temporary Measures) Act repealed before its expiry date of April 30?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to comment on the preamble to that question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Will the minister be writing a book?


John Napier Turner: We are reviewing the facts in relation to that Act.


MANPOWER
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber St. George's-Sl. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the fact that information on the Opportunities for Youth program has not yet reached some Manpower offices, specifically in

March 24, 1971

Newfoundland where unemployment is at its highest, will the minister ensure that quotas are put aside for those provinces so affected because of receiving the information late?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I will look into the question of why the forms have not arrived, and also discuss the matter raised by the hon. member, with my colleague the Secretary of State.


NATIONAL SECURITY
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact it is alleged that the Secretary of State is now questioning the credibility of the government in dealing with the Quebec situation, and also the invocation of the War Measures Act, will the Prime Minister now take this matter into consideration and report to the House tomorrow in order that we can understand and be apprised of the attitude of the government in this whole matter?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. member's question is based on an earlier question of his leader, which was apparently based on a press report that was false. Therefore the whole premise of this question falls to the ground. I suggest that some members read the book.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question period has expired. I have taken note of hon. members who have exercised patience. I did the same yesterday. I think I have been true to my word and have given preference to hon. members who did not have an opportunity to ask their questions yesterday. The Chair will follow the same practice tomorrow.


Martial Asselin: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Charlevoix on a point of order.


Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, during the question period, the Prime Minister indicated that he had not seen the book written by the Secretary of State on the October crisis, and that according to his information, this book made no reference to the secret of the cabinet.
Can the right hon. gentleman assure the House-and this is the gist of my question of privilege-that he will ask the Secretary of State not to publish this book until he can look at it himself, to see-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I invite the hon. member to resume his seat. There is obviously no question of privilege. The hon. member's question has nothing to do with parliamentary privilege, and I must make a decision accordingly.
Young Offenders Act



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, March 23, consideration of the motion of Mr. Goyer that Bill C-192, respecting young offenders and to repeal the Juvenile Delinquents Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs; and the amendment thereto of Mr. Woolliams (page 2381).
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to special order made on Tuesday, March 23, the House will now revert to the deferred division on the proposed amendment to Bill C-192. Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: 
Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, on
November 16, 1970, Bill C-192 was introduced for the first time, and now after waiting for five months the hon.

member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. Cullen) has finally found an organization supporting this bill, namely, the Canadian Bar Association. Five months is a long time to wait, and the Canadian Bar Association is the only body, as far as I know, which has approved this bill. They approved the bill in general and its philosophy in particular. Then they indicated to the Solicitor General (Mr. Goyer) that it is the responsibility of the federal government to build training schools.
They made 14 recommendations with regard to changes to the bill. Among those 14 suggestions they referred to the title, uniformity of age, the right to legal counsel, bail, no obligation to admit the substance of the offence by the accused, review of a finding of insanity by the judge, from time to time, and recommended that fingerprinting be deleted. Those are only seven of the 14 recommendations that they made. Even though they supported the bill, they underlined the reasons why organizations across the country and many persons in various professional fields have opposed the legislation.
You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that when I spoke on the amendment to this measure I said that the bill in substance was punitive and retrogressive and that it was not in tune with the concept of a just society or the principles of the modern treatment of young people with antisocial behaviour problems. This afternoon I should like to take a historical and comparative approach to the problem of the young people in Canada. It sets itself into four stages. First, we have the Juvenile Delinquents Act of 1929. We have the report of the Department of Justice Committee on Juvenile Delinquency of 1961, which reported in 1966. We have the third stage, the federal-provincial conference in September of 1967 where officials of the Department of the Solicitor General and of different departments, both in the federal and provincial field, met. Then we have the fourth and final stage, the Young Offenders Act which was introduced in November of 1970.
First, I should like to deal with the Juvenile Delinquents Act as it first came into force in 1929. It sets forth a philosophy according to which an attempt is made to protect juvenile offenders from the stigma and the punitive approach of the criminal law and to provide them with mature understanding, guidance, discipline and support. The legislation directs itself in three basic ways. It attempts to remove young people from the jurisdiction of the adult courts and place them under the jurisdiction of specialized juvenile courts. Second, it establishes that trials of juveniles should be held free of publicity and in a manner which is informal yet consistent with the proper administration of justice. Third, it provides for reformative sentencing and is focused primarily on the welfare of the individual offender. Section 38 of the Juvenile Delinquents Act sets forth the philosophy clearly and boldly by stating as follows:
This act shall be liberally construed to the end that its purpose may be carried out, namely, that the care and custody and discipline of a juvenile delinquent shall approximate as nearly as may be that which should be given by its parents, and that as far as practicable every juvenile delinquent shall be treated, not as a criminal, but as a misdirected and misguided child, and one needing aid, encouragement, help and assistance.
Division
++NAYS
Messrs:
Langlois
Leblanc (Laurier)
LeBlanc (Rimouski) Lefebvre Lessard (LaSalle)
Lessard
(Lac-Saint-Jean)
Lind
MacEachen
MacGuigan
Mackasey
Mcllraith
McNulty
Mahoney
Marceau
Marchand
(Kamloops-Cariboo)
Morison
Munro
Noel
O'Connell
Olson
Orange
Osier
Ouellet
Penner
Pepin
Perrault
Portelance
Pringle
Prud'homme
Reid
Richard
Richardson
Robinson
Rochon
Rock
Roy (Timmins)
Serre
Sharp
Smerchanski Smith (Saint-Jean) Stafford Stanbury Stewart
(Okanagan-Kootenay) St. Pierre Sulatycky Sullivan Thomas
(Maisonneuve-
Rosemont)
Tolmie
Trudeau
Trudel
Turner (London East)
Turner (Ottawa-Carleton)
Watson
Weatherhead
Whelan
Yanakis-116.
March 24, 1971

Section 3 (2) of the act refers to how a child should be dealt with. It states:
Where a child is adjudged to have committed a delinquency he shall be dealt with not as an offender, but as one in a condition of delinquency and therefore requiring help and guidance and proper supervision.
Section 20 deals with the treatment of a child. It states that if the youngster is adjudged to be a juvenile delinquent, the case should be disposed of in one of many ways. First, he should be given a suspended sentence. Second, the hearing should be adjourned or there should be a disposition of the case from time to time for any definite or indefinite period. Third, a fine should be imposed not exceeding $25, which may be paid in periodical amounts or otherwise. Fourth, the child should be committed to the care or custody of a probation officer or of any other suitable person. Fifth, the child should be allowed to remain in its home, subject to the visitation of a probation officer, such child to report to the court or to the probation officer as often as may be required. Sixth, the child should be placed in a suitable family home as a foster home, subject to the friendly supervision of a probation officer and the further order of the court. Seventh, such further or other conditions should be imposed upon the delinquent as may be deemed advisable. Eighth, the child should be committed to the charge of any Children's Aid Society and, ninth, the child should be committed to an industrial school.
It is rather striking that the final disposition is with regard to an industrial school and that it is listed last. In section 20(5) with regard to the treatment and disposition of juvenile delinquents it is stated that the child's own good is paramount. It provides:
The action taken shall, in every case, be that which the court is of opinion the child's own good and the best interests of the community require.
We have had that act since 1929, and it had its shortcomings. One of the shortcomings was that it was possible to prosecute a youngster seven years of age and in some cases to commit him to a training school. Probably the definition of delinquency was too wide because it included breaches of municipal, provincial or federal statutes. Some of the sentences were punitive. Also, there appeared to be a lack of community resources to implement the treatment of anti-social youngsters.
The greatest deficiency was probably with regard to Indian and Eskimo children and children living in rural areas. The final shortcoming was that it tended to stigmatize a juvenile delinquent as a junior criminal. They tagged him and then awaited his elevation to an adult criminal. It is very striking that many studies show that there is a close relationship between a youngster who has been adjudged a juvenile delinquent and later becomes an adult criminal. That is the first stage with regard to this particular problem.
In 1961, as a result of some of the shortcomings of the Juvenile Delinquents Act, the Justice Committee on Juvenile Delinquency was appointed. It had five members representing four divisions of the Department of Justice. I should like to set them forth: the first was the criminal
Young Offenders Act
law section, second the RCMP, third the penitentiaries branch and, forth, the parole division. They commenced hearings in 1961 and tabled their report in February of 1966.
The way in which the committee prefaced its remarks is striking when we see they say that the inquiry took much longer to conclude than was anticipated at the beginning, since none of the committee members had worked in the juvenile field. They say they were not entirely aware of the complexity of the problem. There were no juvenile court judges, no psychiatrists, no psychologists, no sociologists, no probation officers, no representatives from training schools, no social workers and no representatives from the Children's Aid Society or from foster homes. It was really a select committee of the Department of Justice representing four areas in respect of treatment.
Regardless of that, the committee set forth 100 recommendations many of which are excellent and were well received by various institutions across the country. First of all, they drew up a draft bill entitled the Children and Young Persons Act. Second, and this is important, they included a clause which set forth the philosophy that should be embraced in this bill. I will read the philosophy set forth in the draft bill. It is as follows:
Where a child or young person has been adjudged a violator, a child offender, or a young offender, as the case may be, he shall be dealt with not in a punitive manner, but as a child or young person requiring help and guidance and proper supervision.
The next clause states:
This act shall be liberally construed to the end that its purpose may be carried out, namely, that the care and custody and discipline of a child or young person adjudged to be a violator, a child offender or a young offender shall approximate as nearly as may be that which should be given by its parents, and that, as far as practicable, every such child or young person shall be treated not as a criminal, but as a misdirected and misguided child, and one needing aid, encouragement, help and assistance.
It is obvious that the clauses in the draft bill were an adaptation of the particular sections in the Juvenile Delinquents Act as set forth in sections 38 and 3(2). In the notes included in the draft bill we find these words:
We agree with the philosophy expressed in section 38 of the act. The difficulty has not been in the basic philosophy of the act but in the failure of society to give to the juvenile court adequate resources with which to fulfil the aims of that philosophy.
Mr. Speaker, it is very important to keep that in mind as we study this bill. The draft bill incorporates many of the recommendations, in fact most of the recommendations, and even though it was in legalistic language it met with the approval of many people, at least in respect of the recommendations made. The next step was the federal-provincial conference of officials of the Department of the Solicitor General as well as representatives of the departments of the provincial Attorneys General and of correction departments. This was held in December 1967. Differences must have arisen. The Solicitor
4576

March 24, 1971
Young Offenders Act
General admitted this in his speech when in opening the debate, as recorded at page 2370 of Hansard, he said:
-unanimity could not be achieved on all the proposed reforms, and some compromise solutions had to be adopted in order to win approval by a majority of the delegates. Consequently ... the bill which X am submitting ... for second reading is certainly not perfect.
The words "Consequently the bill I am submitting for second reading is certainly not perfect" are absolutely true. This has been shown by the opposition which has been forthcoming from organizations and experienced persons across the country. I cast no reflection on the Solicitor General but serious reflection on the senior officials of his department. They watered down and restricted many of the recommendations; they failed to adhere to the philosophy set forth in the bill drafted by the justice committee and introduced a bill which is retrogressive and punitive.
If the Canadian Bar Association can set forth 14 areas of disagreement, I respectfully suggest that there are at least 10 areas in which we can demonstrate the inadequacy of this bill. Clause 4 of Bill C-192, the young offenders bill, provides:
This act shall be liberally construed to the end that where a young person is found under section 29 to have committed an offence, he will be dealt with as a misdirected and misguided young person requiring help, guidance, encouragement, treatment and supervision and to the end that the care, custody and discipline of that young person will approximate as nearly as may be that which should be given by such a young person's parents.
It is obvious that these words again have been taken from section 38 and section 3(2) of the Juvenile Delinquents Act, with two major exceptions. Those two major exceptions as set forth in the Juvenile Delinquents Act are, first, that the young person shall not be treated as a criminal and, second, that he shall not be treated as an offender. The Justice Committee in its report states that the young person shall not be treated in a punitive manner and shall not be treated as a criminal.
That philosophy or attitude of not treating a young person as a criminal, as an offender or in a punitive manner is totally absent from clause 4 of this bill. This is where there is a sharp conflict in respect of the philosophy, because it seems to me the Solicitor General is not stressing the philosophy and attitude which should be taken toward young people and is placing the major emphasis on the arbitrariness which he and his officials feel young people may have objected to under the previous act. That is the first point in respect of the philosophy.
The second point has to do with the title. It is now called the Young Offenders Act. It is striking to note that in the French version it is "Loi sur les jeunes delin-quants". In other words, there is almost a direct reference to juvenile delinquents in the French version. The justice committee recommended the title of Children and Young Persons Act. In other words, they did not want to stigmatize a young person as an offender in the same way young people were stigmatized as juvenile delinquents. That is very important.
The third area is that the justice committee in its report dealt with the informal disposition of cases without the necessity of formal trial where the police clearly indicate the commission of the offence, where the substance of the charge is admitted by the child and where the express consent of the parent is obtained. Bill C-192 restricts these cases to those not involving infliction or risk of serious bodily harm and allows the Attorney General to exercise a veto over such procedures within a period of time. This is totally absent from the report of the justice committee. In the past, juvenile courts have had the power to dispose of cases without the laying of a formal charge. Therefore, by restricting this type of disposition to cases that do not involve infliction of serious bodily harm there is a further restriction, rather than an expansion, under the terms of this bill.
The fourth area deals with convictions. The draft bill drawn up by the justice committee not only said that a criminal conviction should not be used or considered with regard to a second criminal offence, but that it should not apply to other subjects and disciplines. In other words, it said not only was it necessary to prevent the use of criminal conviction in a subsequent hearing, but it was necessary to prevent its use whenever a young person applied for employment. Clause 71 of Bill C-192 confines this restriction to prohibition on a conviction being used in subsequent criminal proceedings, but says nothing about the other disabilities which may be imposed on a young person. In other words, there is no attempt to protect young people against discrimination as a result of past convictions, when they seek employment.
In the fifth area, Mr. Speaker, the justice committee recommended that the law guardian system in operation in New York should be applied. In other words, a public defender could be obtained by a young man charged under the terms of the bill. But the bill itself has made no provision for legal counsel as a right of the accused. His right to counsel is placed within the discretion of the juvenile court judge. In a bill that is so complex and technical, compared with the succinct, clear wording of the Juvenile Delinquents Act, I am amazed that the guarantee of legal counsel, recommended by the justice committee, has not been spelled out in clear terms.
With regard to commitment to training schools, the justice committee recommended that commitment to a training school should only be a last resort and only for a period not longer than three years. It said no commitment should be made unless the judge first considered a pre-sentence report and, secondly, after every effort had been made to train the child in his own home, in a foster home or other shelter. In this bill the requirement that commitment be made only after all efforts are made to train the youngster in his own home, a foster home or group home is missing.
Is it not striking, Mr. Speaker, that in the Juvenile Delinquents Act passed in 1929, section 25 stipulated that a condition precedent to commitment should be that all efforts were first made to reform the child in his own

March 24, 1971

home or foster home, etc? It is obvious that with respect to commitment, the provision in this bill is a retrogressive step. It is not in keeping with the Juvenile Delinquents Act or with the report of the justice committee.
The seventh ground is that clause 30(l)(h) sets forth that where one is liable to the death sentence or life imprisonment as the result of conviction, a young person shall be directed to a training school for a period of three years, after which it is within the discretion of the judge to return the child to an adult court for sentencing. This has been rightly called double jeopardy with regard to sentencing. Mr. Speaker, I ask you, or the Solicitor General to point out any criminal code in the western world that contains a provision with regard to double jeopardy in sentencing. That is not worthy of a country like Canada which is attempting, in its shabby way, to bring forth a just society.
It is not worthy that the report of the justice committee did not contain any recommendation with regard to double sentencing. Members of the committee were aware of the risks that might result from releasing a young person after three years' treatment in a training school but, if I read their report correctly, they were prepared to take the risk of reforming and rehabilitating a young man within three years, rather than accept the possible detrimental effects of long-term confinement. They were prepared to accept the risk of a young man returning to society after three years, despite the possibility of recidivism, rather than the result of long-term confinement.
An eighth area is that involving fingerprinting. Clause 74(1) of the bill provides that a young person may be fingerprinted if a juvenile court judge orders it to be done. Again, it is rather striking that the justice committee made no recommendation with regard to fingerprinting. Therefore, it is reasonable to infer that they saw no merit in it.
A ninth area covers the transfer of young offenders to adult institutions. Clause 47 permits a judge, on application by the superintendent of a training school, to transfer a child to an adult institution if he deems this to be in the best interests of the young person or of the other inmates of the training school. What a contrast this is to the Juvenile Delinquents Act! Section 26 of that act, passed away back in 1929, said that no transfer whatever should be permitted, under any circumstances, of a juvenile delinquent to an adult institution. People in those days realized that sending young offenders to adult institutions was only giving them an opportunity to meet adult criminals and to adopt their ways and thinking. In that respect this bill is a step backward.
My tenth and final ground is that this bill has set the minimum age as ten years at which a child can come under the jurisdiction of a juvenile court. This is a slight improvement over the Juvenile Delinquents Act which set the age at seven years. Yet the government has opted to continue the use of quasi-judicial procedures and sanctions to control the anti-social behaviour of young children. This is done at a time when the approach is toward the integration of delinquency and child welfare services,
24081-9i
Young Offenders Act
fostered and partly financed by the Canada Assistance Plan.
It is done at a time when England, Scotland and the Scandinavian countries have restricted or abolished the adversary system in juvenile court prosecutions. May I give an example. The Children and Young Persons Act passed in England in 1969 stipulated that with the exception of homicide there are to be no criminal prosecutions of young people under the age of 14 years. Compare that with the age of ten years stipulated in this bill. They state that young people shall be treated informally through agencies or formally in juvenile courts when children are apparently beyond control or in need of protection. For young people from 14 to 17 years of age, prosecutions are only allowed for serious offences laid by qualified informants, and they are prohibited where the case can be dealt with by caution or counselling or by means of child protection proceedings.
That is in England, Mr. Speaker. In Scotland they have gone much further. In the Social Work (Scotland) Act of 1968 they say that there shall be no prosecution of children under 16 years of age except on instruction of the Lord Advocate. They set up a panel system of three persons trained in social work. They deal with their young people by having them appear before the panel, which disposes of each case with rehabilitation and reformation as the foremost considerations.
It is obvious that in England, Scotland and the Scandinavian countries there has been a shift from the quasicriminal process and adversary system to one which ensures provision of adequate social control. I ask the Solicitor General, why can we not have the same approach in Canada? Surely the provinces could take care of young people up to 16 years of age, with the financial assistance of the federal government for building training schools and providing resources to help and guide them. No young person should be stigmatized either as a young offender or a criminal when he is under 16.
The federal government should take the initiative with regard to young people between the ages of 16 and 21, because that is the crucial age. We should do all we can to prevent this stigma and the imposition of a criminal record on those between the ages of 16 and 21. This would be an enlightened approach and I think we should give it our full attention. It is not enough to protect a young person from the arbitrariness of a court. We have to develop a social philosophy with adequate resources and people to meet this problem. That is why I am moving the following amendment, Mr. Speaker:
That this bin be not now read a second time but that this House affirms that young persons should not be treated as criminals and that the principle of flexibility of treatment of young persons should be emphasized rather than the legal technicalities of the criminal law.
If we are to make any progress with regard to having our young people become Canadians of whom we can be proud, we have to develop institutions which will implement social policies for reform and rehabilitation rather

March 24, 1971
Young Offenders Act
than institutions which are retrogressive and punitive with regard to treatment. I hope the Solicitor General will take this amendment into consideration and withdraw the bill. I hope he will appoint a group of serious men to study this problem, men from all walks of life rather than those from a limited area. The problem should be studied in all its aspects, and consultations held with organizations and institutions across the country. Perhaps the group could go to England, Scotland and Scandinavia to study their schemes and then bring in a bill of which all Canadians could be proud.


Mr. Speaker:: I am not sure whether hon. members are satisfied with the form of the amendment. At first glance, from the point of view of the Chair it appears that this is a regular, reasoned amendment. Unless objections are taken to it from a procedural standpoint, the amendment will be considered as having been put to the House.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Carried.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, under this legislation, Bill C-192, it is proposed to discontinue the use of the terms "delinquency" and "delinquent" and substitute a somewhat more complex classification by the use of the terms "violation", "offence", "violators" and "offenders". I feel that legislation dealing with young persons should not be unduly complex and should be readily understood by parent and child alike. To discontinue use of the term "delinquency" would indicate a desire motivated in part to get rid of the existing stigma associated with it. It is my belief that a change in terminology will not resolve the problem; it is basically a matter of better education. I intend to use the term "delinquency" throughout my remarks as being the closest description of the subject matter of the bill.
It has been said that delinquency, whether juvenile or adult, is nothing more than a by-product or an expression of the system of values maintained by society as a whole. In this connection we should remember that the children who appear before juvenile courts constitute but a small fraction of the total juvenile population who are delinquent in one way or another. Who or what is to blame for juvenile delinquency? I do not know the answer but I can point out some opinions that have received varying degrees of support. It has been said that children become delinquent because they model their behaviour after delinquent adults.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: before. I am not overly familiar with conditions that exist in jurisdictions in the southern provinces, but I can say that in the Yukon the incidence of juvenile offences has increased dramatically. Nowhere is the gap more evident between law enforcement agencies and young people in our society at the moment than in the jurisdiction I represent.
How great a problem do we have with juvenile delinquency in Canada? It is curious that notwithstanding the tremendous interest and, indeed, even concern on the part of the public over delinquency, most people when questioned about the extent of the local problem hasten to assure the questioner that they do not really have a problem in their community. Generally they will point to the nearest large industrial city and indicate that the delinquency problem may exist there, but "not in our town". Our experience in Canada seems to correspond with that of an American observer who commented on the fact that a peculiar characteristic of the half million youngsters who are reported annually in the courts of the United States is their anonymity in the eyes of the general public. He said that they seem never to have names, faces or local addresses.
We have some information on the nature of the problem. We know that nine out of ten juveniles who are found guilty by the juvenile courts are students, and that two out of three are in grade 6, 7, 8 or 9. A high proportion of them are one year or more behind the average grade for their age. Eight out of 10 are between 12 and 15 years of age. That fact puts me in mind of the provision in the bill respecting the arrest, apprehension and detention of young persons. It also puts me in mind of a case current in my jurisdiction involving a 15-year old who has been charged with murder. For three months that 15-year old was kept in a correctional institution utilized for the detention of adult convicts.
There are no facilities in my jurisdiction for the detention of young persons. Perhaps the Solicitor General (Mr. Goyer) will take that into consideration, because I think that this lack has a chain-like ramification, right down the line, with respect to the treatment of young offenders. For instance, there were no facilities for the detention of this youngster who was charged with murder, and as a result he had to be kept in an institution for the detention of adult convicts. Because of that the Crown had to apply to have his case transferred to the adult courts. It was not until the territorial administration relented and undertook to provide for the custody and detention of this youngster that he was placed where he is now, in the detention home for young offenders recently established in my jurisdiction.
We know, Sir, that the rate of juvenile delinquency is increasing at a faster pace than is the general population. The increase-these statistics I have simply selected for the purpose of random comparison-between 1957 and 1961 should cause us to reflect. Between those years covering a five-year span the number of juvenile convictions for breaking and entering increased by 70 per cent. The number of convictions for theft and similar offences also increased by 70 per cent. Two out of three of the offences for which juveniles are convicted in Canada in
Young Offenders Act
juvenile court involve breaking and entering, theft or possession of stolen property.
If there is one thing we can say with assurance about juvenile delinquency, it is that it is not a new problem. The Greek scholars were concerned about it in their time, just as we are in ours. But I think we must be careful not to fall prey to the idea that juvenile delinquency has always been with us and that we are bound to have more of it as our population grows. That, again, is too much like a purely statistical approach. It can lead too easily to an attitude bordering on fatalism. If we accept the proposition that we are bound to have more juvenile delinquency, and sit back and wait for it to come, I suggest that the only result will be that we will have a lot more of it than we expect.
It is, of course, a difficult problem. It requires co-ordination and constant effort. But something can be done about it. The introduction of a procedure and the erection of a technical structure for dealing with youthful offenders as set out in Bill C-192 will not be sufficient. While constitutional responsibility in fields like this is divided among the various levels of government, the federal government can at least use its resources as the national government to assist in solving the problem on a nation wide basis. Bill C-192 certainly will not solve the problem because it fails to strike at its roots.
Another aspect of the over-all problem is the co-ordination of efforts of municipal and provincial police forces with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in an effort to prevent syndicated, organized crime from moving into Canada. The gambling, narcotics and prostitution rackets engaged in by those organizations can provide a fertile breeding ground for delinquency, as indeed has been happening. One of the suggestions that has been made, for instance, is that a program for teachers be instituted in the provinces in order to enable teachers to detect signs of delinquency and to equip them to deal with it.
Nowhere is information more woefully inadequate with respect to the implementation of this kind of program than in the field of narcotics. If the true statistics were known in this connection, they would stagger the imaginations of even the most lassitudinous and complacent members of the adult world. In my jurisdiction the situation has now reached the stage where a young person only has to decide whether he or she will use narcotics and they will be available if the decision is made to use them. This does not apply only to the older generation; it applies both to high schools and elementary schools, right down to children who are 12 years old.
I have had personal experience with a young girl aged 12 who was not using mild drugs but hard drugs. Of course, the habit costs money. It breeds the crimes of breaking and entering and theft to support the habit. This is the kind of program, similar to the one announced by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) a short while ago, that requires to be implemented in conjunction with legislation like Bill C-192. The program announced by the Minister of

March 24, 1971
Young Offenders Act
National Health and Welfare with respect to the setting up and support of organizations which will deal effectively with the roots of the problem that makes Bill C-192 necessary is indeed welcome in my own constituency. Included in the problem is the abuse of non-medical drugs and narcotics.
It is also felt that the still high percentage of early dropouts from school is one of the contributing factors of juvenile delinquency. This, of course, raises a problem. It is one which the provinces have been grappling with and, I believe, making some progress on for many years, namely, of ensuring that in addition to opportunities for academic training, youngsters should also have an opportunity to develop other abilities and skills if they are more suited for them. The federal government, under the technical and vocational training assistance legislation, has now under way 160 to 170 vocational and technical schools in Canada. It may well be that this program, in addition to its value from the economic point of view, can also be used as an instrument in the fight against juvenile delinquency. Before that becomes possible a teacher and educational training program must be implemented.
I would mention at this point that there is a necessity for professionally trained people in our communities, to deal with young people. I know that the shortage of probation officers is one factor that has been mentioned in hearings before the committee. In my jurisdiction, the lack of probation services and professionally trained persons to deal with young people is unbelievably and woefully inadequate. The state of New York, with a population of 18 million, has some 1,600 probation officers, while Canada has less than 300 people engaged full time in this work. The proper case load is considered to be 35 boys or 25 girls per case worker. It has been estimated that here the load is 180 or more per case worker.
Juvenile delinquency has been blamed on the lack of parental control, lack of schooling, poverty, our environment, our society, our lack of faith and our materialism. The truth, of course, is that the fault can be laid on any or none of these things. If we could find the answer, the complete answer, then we could perhaps effect the complete cure. There is no simple answer. It is a complex problem brought about by numerous causes both psychological and sociological. Just as there is no one simple and uncomplicated child, there is no one simple, uncomplicated solution. This is why in this particular field the more knowledge, understanding, humanity and money that can be brought to bear on the entire field of the activities of youth, the better will be our society. This is one field where the community must work as a whole.
Because the Minister of National Health and Welfare is in the House I wish to mention that there is one such organization wherein the community is working as a whole. The adult establishment is working hand in hand with the younger element in that community, some of whom have been on the narcotic scene and some of whom have not yet been on the narcotic scene. We all welcome the announced program of several million dollars to be used for the purpose of fighting the evil perpetuation of the younger elements of our society fall-
TMr. Nielsen.]
ing into a pattern of regular use of narcotics. It is a field which cannot be swept clean by the cleansing fury of any one individual. There are many Canadians who are not only aware of the problem and the steps which must be taken to combat it but who are taking these steps. Here I refer to the splendid work being done by organizations such as the scouts, guides, the YMCA, YWCA, the many boys clubs and the religious youth groups which are all playing their part.
I would like to emphasize that the fight against juvenile delinquency lies with every part of society. I believe it is vitally important in this field that every action be governed by unity. The federal government can play a leading role in providing the leadership that is necessary if there is to be united action by the provinces and territories of this country. There are other fields in which one specialist profession can do great work. Organizations dedicated to the elimination of a disease or an affliction have clearly recognizable objects and aims. No matter how arduous their task, they are at least fully conscious of their enemy and can bend the whole energy of their organization toward its destruction.
In juvenile delinquency we have a problem as recurring and shifting as any which has ever faced society. There seems to be no permanent cure and no ultimate solution. Where there is youth, there will always be found the problems of youth. In tackling these problems, the only effective approach is the unified one in which every member of society realizes the problem and, more important, takes part in combating it. It is not a battle which can be won by a series of sanctimonious lectures nor by harsh, primitive methods in the courts. Nor will it be won by pampering and weakness. It can only be won if first of all the extent and nature of the complaint is fully exposed and then tackled by comprehensive and co-ordinated measures.
Before concluding my remarks, Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a few words about the woeful lack of services available to the poorer sections of our populations, particularly to Indian people. The greatest majority of youthful offenders who appear before the courts in my jurisdiction are full-blooded Indian or Metis young people.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: It is the same in other parts of the country.


Erik Nielsen: As the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) has pointed out, it is the same in other parts of the country; yet legal aid facilities are not available to these young people or their parents. They often appear in court alone because their parents are out of the country or for other reasons cannot be found; and there, in a strange atmosphere, a foreign milieu, they are confronted with accusations of crime, not knowing what to do, what to say or in which direction to turn.
The same deficiency appears in the bill before us as appeared in the previous legislation. Too often, police officers apprehending young offenders embark upon a series of questions and inquiries in the absence of either the parents or other responsible adults. I am not dis-
March 24, 1971

paraging the fine work of police forces such as the RCMP; nevertheless, I deplore the investigative techniques employed by law enforcement officers who, having apprehended a young person defined as a juvenile under the act, embark upon a course of investigation in the absence of a parent.
Sometimes investigating officers will wait until after such an interrogation has taken place before notifying the parent or guardian of the young person's apprehension. Again, particularly in the case of a first offender, the young person is confronted with a foreign atmosphere in the police station. He is under a cloud of fear, perhaps under a misconception that he is required by law to answer questions. He is not informed whether or not at this stage he is entitled to counsel. He is not told his parents are being notified.
I am not suggesting this is done in every instance, but these abuses have occurred on too many occasions. I have even had experience of one case where four young people were apprehended on a narcotics charge. Among them were persons who could be defined as juveniles under this proposed legislation and under existing legislation. They were stripped to the skin and searched bodily, and their clothing was also seached, before their parents were notified. The Solicitor General and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) could help to avoid this kind of thing happening in the future by issuing specific instructions. I remind hon. members in this connection that the Solicitor General is specifically responsible for the RCMP and that the Minister of Justice is the Attorney General for both the northern territories. A specific instruction is all that would be required to prevent this kind of abuse in the future.
My last observation on the bill at this stage concerns the choice of judicial officers to deal with youthful offences. We all know that the federal government appoints judges by and large on the basis of whether the potential appointee has been a faithful adherent of the political party which finds itself in power and makes the appointment. This is deplorable enough in relation to the appointment of superior court judges, but I certainly do not believe this course should be followed in the appointment of judiciary officials charged with responsibility for dealing with youthful offenders. He or she must bring something more to their work than legal training.
What is required above everything is an understanding of youth and the problems of youth. There is enough of a chasm between the adult establishment and the youth of our country without widening it still further by placing political appointees, who might otherwise not be well-qualified for this particular task, on the judicial bench to deal with young offenders, often without the slightest idea of the problems of youth and young persons generally. This system must cease if any headway is to be made even with respect to the technical administration of Bill C-192.
I urge the Solicitor General to take up with his officials the observations I have made concerning my constituency, in the hope that the difficulties which now exist in the Yukon may be alleviated. One word, before I take my seat, with respect to the operation of the detention home
Young Offenders Act
for young offenders in the Yukon. I must toss a bouquet out, because here is a young institution which in the course of its operation has accomplished a great deal in reducing the incidence of crime by youthful offenders in my constituency. Its stated objective, and one I believe it follows, is that the sooner young offenders can be sent out of the institution and back into their homes, the better. The institution has a staff of very fine persons employed at Wolf Creek and they are doing excellent work.


Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, those who are in the best position to express objective remarks on a bill such as the one before us, are obviously those who are daily directly involved in the specific problems of young people.
Therefore, I think that the brief sent to us by the authorities of Boscoville makes clear, in a very satisfactory manner, what should be changed in this legislation in order to make it acceptable.
In his letter dated January 20, 1971, the director of Boscoville, Mr. Gilles Gendreau, emphasized, among other things the following, and I quote:
Boscoville considers that twenty years of rehabilitation work with young offenders allows it, when this legislation is being considered, to make some comments so that the law-makers may be still better informed before the adoption and the implementation of the Young Offenders Act.
We hope that this information will throw more light on the matter and we wish to assure you that our main concern is to help as much as possible the young misfits.
Of course, there is not one member in this House who would suggest that there is any partisanship there. Therefore, I think it is my duty to bring up, as faithfully as possible the amendments proposed and the objective criticism advanced by Boscoville and, to do so, Mr. Speaker, may I be allowed to quote large extracts from the brief itself.
On the whole, Boscoville recognizes that this bill is showing real progress in its more constructive approach towards young offenders.
I said about the same thing during the speech I delivered on the first amendment to this bill.
The spirit of our remarks would like to express, however, extremely serious concern with regard to the rehabilitation philosophy and the practical measures in general relating to such a policy.
That, Mr. Speaker, is the problem which became obvious to those who are daily and directly involved in juvenile delinquency.
The brief deals with the following matters:
1.	Remarks concerning rehabilitation per se.
2.	Age.
3.	Education and training.
4.	Accurate use of terms.
Remarks related to a concept of rehabilitation considered as a logical whole.
On page 27, section 30(4): Trial after rehabilitation process:
Boscoville considers it incompatible with a rehabilitation process to demand that a juvenile who has gone through a rehabili-

March 24, 1971
Young Offenders Act
tation process be faced with a second trial at the end of his stay in a training school where he has undergone a transformation. Such a procedure amounts to advocating euthanasia for sick people suffering from a very serious but curable disease.
All those who realize what the rehabilitation of a young offender really means must vigorously oppose this clause. Boscoville's experience shows us that it is possible to save such youths and protect society at the same time without starting new proceedings which would only prove a set-back in the rehabilitation of a young person who would have to undergo a new trial. It even seems to us that such a measure amounts to prevent any real possibility of rehabilitation for these young offenders. Therefore we oppose this clause.
A second point is underlined on page 55, section 60(4), in connection with publicity and this is what those who have been dealing with this type of problem for the past 20 years have to say about it:
It is said that a judge could grant permission to publish reports on some of the proceedings in the case of a young offender.
For purposes of rehabilitation, we submit that no publicity whatsoever should be allowed on the subject of the actual act committed by a young offender whenever the latter appears before a juvenile court.
No permission to disclose to the public any aspect of the family or personal problem should be granted. The risks involved are too great for such a thing to be allowed. This is clearly viewed from the rehabilitation standpoint which definitely implies that an individual should not have to bear social stigmas which are not conducive to social reinstatement.
This is unavoidable in the case of adults and under no circumstances must it be permitted in the case of young people, for it would be a backward step.
Then the following point is emphasized on page 53 of the brief, with regard to clause 59(2) (b):
Incarceration with adults.
A judge may by warrant commit a young person to detention. It seems to us that such a measure should not be applied towards a young person when there are detention facilities for adolescents within the judicial area where the proceedings are taking place. Contacts with adult inmates, during the incarceration prior to rehabilitation are to be avoided since they might well stigmatize a young person. Past experiences prove that such things are to be eliminated whenever possible.
About the judge's role, here is what they say:
The judge is the final representative of society. We should like to point out that as a rule, the judge must be the final representative of society for the young person and it is important that he be in a position to play that role.
The judge's personalization. The judge must as much as possible be a personalized judge, that is a judge who is responsible for a youth throughout his criminal life. If possible, a young offender should not appear before a new judge each time he is charged with a new offence. The judge who started with him should continue to hear the cases involving the young man unless it is clearly unadvisable.
And about the judge and the superintendent:
We must avoid giving to the superintendent, as pointed out in clause 47, paragraph 1, the responsibility to transfer from one institution to another. The judge must be the one who appraises the value of the rehabilitation measures that society, of which he is the final representative, takes for this youth. This must be respected if we want the judge to play the role that experience has proved essential to a successful rehabilitation.
And the brief goes on about the age of the children:
A child between 10 and 14 should not, under any circumstances, be kept in a place where there are persons other than children of his age. Such a juvenile should never be allowed to come into
contact with adults or older youths. Experience in the matter proves the absolute necessity of avoiding such contacts.
And further on, the preparation and training of people is mentioned:
All through the act, no mention is made of the quality of the preparation and training of persons who must deal with young people, at any level.
As to institutions, the brief says, and I quote:
Furthermore, nothing is said about the quality of the institutions (in a broad sense) which must receive, greet and take care of the juveniles entrusted to them by the judge.
In other words, Mr. Speaker, we must consider that a law may appear, at first glance, to be efficient, but if the essential elements are missing which would prevent its application and, especially, dent its spirit, it is useless. It is the same as putting the cart before the horse, and how can we really succeed in solving the problem of juvenile delinquents only through rules and laws, if we have not completely solved the problem of the persons who will be trained to do it, and of the institutions which will be established to provide the rehabilitation?
In conclusion, this brief from Boscoville states:
We are aware that these remarks might appear very limited in scope since they deal mainly with rehabilitation aspects. However, in the long run, it must be kept in mind that legislation dealing with young offenders must pave the way to rehabilitation and if this is not the case, we shall have gone against the spirit of the law. It must be understood that Boscoville felt duty bound to point this out to the legislator, and it hopes that the later will take its views into consideration. The Boscoville Executive Committee would be very happy to give further information if required.
Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, may I say that I hope the minister and his officials have consulted these people who are directly concerned with juvenile delinquency, and that the minister will agree to the amendments that are needed in order to improve this bill which, in principle, is a good one, as I said in my first speech on the subject.
But, Mr. Speaker, this is the proper time for the minister to show the necessary objectivity. Indeed, if we must change the law, let us change it in such a way that it may help settle this extraordinary problem of juvenile delinquency, a problem which becomes that much more complicated today because adults, as such and by their legislation, do nothing to set a very stimulating example to young people.
In the end, if all the problems were thoroughly analyzed, we would realize that often it is the adults' fault if delinquency fares well and flourishes so easily in our country in these particularly difficult times.
Then, Mr. Speaker, hoping that the minister may note and apply all the objective suggestions which may be put to him, I hope that this reform of the Juvenile Delinquents Act may benefit all the young people of Canada.


Mr. Doug Rowland (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, it would seem that this type of legislation frequently produces the best sort of debate in this House. I speak not in terms of

March 24, 1971

the sparks struck but in terms of the content of the speeches and the information presented to the House by hon. members. In that regard I think I can point to the speech of my colleague, the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert), and that of the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) this afternoon.
It is therefore with some reluctance that I rise to speak on the measure, because I do not consider myself to be in any way well versed in the subject matter encompassed by the young offenders bill. However, I have been impressed by the number of representations which I have received on the subject. I have been impressed by the quality of the presentations and by the qualifications of the people making them. Opposition to the bill has come from the Canadian Mental Health Association, from officials associated with juvenile courts, from social workers, from children's aid societies, from sociologists, psychologists, psychiatrists and persons associated with foster parent plans.
After looking at the attack on the bill and the bill itself, on one side of the question-the social agencies concerned with rehabilitation-and on the other side the law officers of the Crown who are concerned with protecting society and the legal and procedural rights of young persons who have come into conflict with the established rules of society, it occurred to me that this might be an appropriate place for the intervention of an amateur whose views have not been shaped by professional involvement with one side of the problem or the other.
It would seem to me-here again I speak with some trepidation, not possessing any great degree of expert knowledge-that there are three major considerations to take into account in examining this bill, and that the public concern which has manifested itself results from the fact that the bill deals, as a result of jurisdictional problems, I suspect, with only one of the three major areas of concern. Because the bill deals with only one of the three areas, people are justifiably concerned about the effects it will have if implemented. They justifiably argue that it should not be implemented until there is further clarification of its potential effects.
The three factors which must be weighed in the consideration of this bill are, I submit, the following. First, what is to be our over-all philosophy of dealing with young persons who have run afoul of the law? Are we to consider them to be, in effect, young criminals requiring punishment? Are we to consider them to be persons not responsible for their actions, who need assistance in understanding the strictures imposed by life in a community? Or are we to consider them to have understood that they were acting wrongly and that they did so because of some social or psychological maladjustment? Obviously, there are many other philosophical approaches which should be considered; but the philosophy which governs this act must be well defined.
The second consideration is, how are we as a society to determine if a young person has offended against society? What are the procedures we wish to employ in so determining, and what safeguards for the civil liberties of persons involved in such procedures is it necessary for us
Young Offenders Act
as a society to offer? The third consideration is, once guilt-if I may so term it-or culpability has been determined, what facilities are available to us as a society to effectively carry out the actions implied by the established philosophy for dealing with young persons who have acted in a manner unacceptable to society?
Those are the three considerations that are encompassed by this bill. It would appear to me that those who drafted the bill have concentrated almost entirely upon the second of the three factors, the determination of guilt and the protection of the legal rights of individuals involved in such procedures. Here let me say in all fairness that in this regard the bill does make some progress. In this respect I should like to quote from a document presented to some members of the House, entitled "A critique of Bill C-192, the Young Offenders Act" which was prepared by John A. MacDonald, assistant professor in the school of social work at the University of British Columbia. In his critique of the bill he notes the following:
Bill C-192 also contains a number of positive features. Thus the bill has a number of welcome provisions designed to limit the arrest and pre-trial detention of juveniles. It also, for the first time, provides juveniles with appeal provisions similar to those available to adult offenders. The bill also contains an excellent section designed to restrict the dissemination of information from the records of the juvenile court. The bill also abolishes the much-criticized offence of "contributing to juvenile delinquency" while at the same time making formal provision for trial in juvenile court of criminal offences primarily affecting family members.
In all fairness, those provisions of the bill are of value. Those who prepared it should be congratulated for including those provisions. In preparing it and in making this progress they were obviously involved to some extent in deciding, perhaps in an unstated fashion, the major philosophical premise which must govern our treatment of young persons who have run afoul of the law. But the bill does not in any way involve the third factor which I have mentioned, namely, the treatment facilities which are necessary for the administration of this law. I suspect, as I have already said, that this factor is not encompassed in the bill for jurisdictional reasons, but I suggest it is within the treatment facilities that the crux of the problem lies.
Moreover, I suggest that since the bill does not deal with treatment facilities, since in addition neither members of this House nor the Canadian public have any knowledge or information about the sort of facilities the provinces intend to make available to administer the act, and since, further, there is no clear understanding of the philosophy which will govern our dealings with young offenders, as the bill terms them, it would be entirely wrong for us to proceed with this legislation. It leaves too much to chance in an area where society cannot afford to take chances. I speak of society's treatment of its young.
I am extremely sorry, for these reasons, that the amendment of the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) was not acceptable to the government. For the same reasons I hope that the government will accept the suggestion made last evening by the hon. member for Welland (Mr. Tolmie) that it be in no particular rush to
4584

March 24, 1971
Young Offenders Act
get the legislation through the committee stage, that ample time be granted for concerned individuals and organizations to present their views, that ample time be permitted for an attempt to reconcile or to choose between the two major philosophical approaches to this question, that of the deterrent school and that of the behavioural problem school, if I may be permitted to oversimplify. I hope the committee study will result in an understanding of the intentions of the provincial governments with respect to the administration of the act, should this bill become law, and that the committee will have an opportunity to review related legislation in foreign jurisdictions.
In brief, I hope the government will grant the committee a completely free hand to alter, amend and vary this legislation after the fullest possible study of its subject matter. Beyond that, I would urge the government to treat this legislation as a matter of conscience rather than as a matter of government policy. I should like to take a moment to suggest the kind of legislation I would like to see emerge from such committee study. I hope the philosophy which emerges will not emphasize punishment but, rather, will emphasize the reformation and rehabilitation of the individual.
I hope a clear understanding of the kind of facilities and procedures necessary to provide for reform and rehabilitation will emerge, and that there will be a clear understanding of how they are to be provided and where the money will come from. I hope that such a study will result in a system of articulated rehabilitation agencies being established. I hope that such a study will result in the avoidance of the child being treated, as is the case in respect of the present act, as a little adult with no reference to the key importance of the family unit. Further, I hope that the double jeopardy aspects of the law will be removed during the course of the study. I hope the study will result in raising still further the age at which a young person is liable to criminal prosecution. Finally, I hope this type of philosophy will be reflected in a new title for the bill which would avoid the term young offender.
I made no apology for not having gone into these areas of concern and many other related matters in more detail. This has already been done, and ably, by other spokesmen for this party, notably the hon. member for Broadview. I would simply again urge the minister to give sympathetic consideration to the points I have made in the course of my brief remarks and which other members made this afternoon, yesterday and on earlier days when the bill was debated. Failing his undertaking to consider these matters, and failing his giving a firm undertaking to this House to the effect that they will be embraced within amendments to the bill, I cannot see how we have any alternative to supporting the amendment which has been presented to the House by the hon. member for Broadview.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, on second reading of the bill presently before us, that is, the act
respecting young offenders, I should like again to call the attention of the minister to certain remarks that I made on January 13 and 14, when we were considering a motion by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams), that consideration of this bill be entrusted to a group of experts.
At that time, Mr. Speaker, I was calling the attention of the minister to clauses 2, 4, 19, 26, 28, 30, 39 and 74. I had limited my study of the bill to these clauses, and after considering the whole thereof, the aspect which impressed me was that these clauses were all inspired by the same philosophy regarding criminality.
Mr. Speaker, I said then that Bill C-192 was prompted by an impulse to jail individuals rather than to rehabilitate them.
I also stated in that connection that courts were duly set up, that the taking of pictures and fingerprints as well as the emprisonment of young people with adults were allowed, and that under some provisions of the law those young people will be submitted to a cross-examination. In short, those provisions, based on the same philosophy of criminality, do not make any distinction between young and adult offenders found guilty of the same offences.
Mr. Speaker, Maurice Patin, a former President of the Criminal section of the Supreme Court of Appeal, said the following:
If we want to eradicate crime, there is something else to do than to punish the wrongdoers.
That means that from now on, we shall have to get inspiration from a philosophy of recuperation of the individual who, for one reason or another, suffered prejudice or was unlucky and one day found himself before the welfare court, in Montreal or elsewhere, after having been caught in the very act of breaking and entering, rape, receiving stolen goods and any other offence. If he is shown understanding, and if dialogue is possible, we are on the right track. If, furthermore, the judge who hears the case of the young boy or girl is provided with the necessary resources to ensure their rehabilitation, we could say that Bill C-192 is a step forward.
I have no doubt that this act must be brought up to date, since the last one was passed, I believe, in 1929. It is obvious, Mr. Speaker, that in that field and many others, we must keep up with the times. But the fact remains that, under our present system, this bill does not change the situation in any way. It gives more discretion to the judge with regard to the criminal aspect, but less with regard to rehabilitation.
Mr. Speaker, we wish precisely the contrary and that is the point on which I want to draw the attention of the minister. Here is a real case: a young person, found guilty of burglary appears before the welfare court judge. The judge must study in his office close to 3,000 cases a year. That is nonsense. That shows how the judge cannot discharge conscientiously his duties, even if he wanted to. Whether he be the best judge available, if he is to hear 25, 50 or 60 cases of delinquency per day, he

March 24, 1971

has to do only half of his work. So much so that the young person will not find either justice or protection in that court. And finally, the young person who will have been submitted to this over-accelerated process- because, in this field as in others, production comes first-will be entrusted to education centres.
Now, nothing proves that it will be possible to re-educate this young person in such rehabilitation centres as Saint-Vallier for instance.
Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Champlain (Mr. Matte) quoted earlier long extracts from a very well drafted brief by the Boscoville authorities, and it is to be noted that in this brief, the emphasis is on rehabilitation. I read with great interest the speech that the Solicitor General (Mr. Goyer) made when this bill was introduced. I think that he is quite sincere there and I trust that the representations made today will give results, because he is young, and because he is as much interested in this problem as the rest of us.
As I said in my speech of January 13 last, if hon. members would forget their political opinions to really consider the problems facing these young people who are called criminals but who, in fact, are not in most cases, we would then draw our inspiration from another philosophy.
I should like to make it clear to the minister. This bill is not actually bad in itself because several of its clauses are quite acceptable and have long been hoped for. I commend the minister for it. However, some provisions do not provide the necessary tools to reach the objective.
What is this objective? Is it to find criminals in order to pass judgement on them, or else is it not to retrace juveniles and give them opportunities they did not have in their youth?
What is our goal? Are we seeking to increase the number of criminals, somewhat in the way we are now increasing the number of unemployed, or are we really seeking to help young people?
Mr. Speaker, if really we want to help them, before presenting such a bill-I do not say it is bad, but I say it is putting the cart before the horse-we must first finance new rehabilitation centres and foster homes, appoint more judges so that justice may be speeded up and gone into more deeply, so that individual justice may truly be meted out. We want, not quantity justice, but quality justice, in other words justice which respects the rights of all and gives to all the required opportunities. Last Thursday I called on Justice Marcel Trahan, in Montreal, and on Chief Justice J.-P. Lavallee who sit in the same court. I went there on my own. I wanted to talk to young offenders. Above all I wanted to become acquainted with the problems of the judge and to try to put myself in his place, not that I credit myself with his talents, but as a member of Parliament, if one wants the laws to reflect reality, one must not be afraid to get involved and find out what is going on.
Therefore I met Judge Trahan and Judge Lavallee. I attended hearings. I understood the problem. I saw countless people place their trust in the judge, and they were very pleased to get help because, on the whole, 99.9 per
Young Offenders Act
cent of those people cannot financially, morally, physically or otherwise, help themselves.
Mr. Speaker, our society's first responsibility is to help those who cannot help themselves. That is why I was shocked, flabbergasted at the sight of the judges' problem.
In the speech I delivered on January 13 and 14, I said that many of the present judges were appointed either through political influence or because of their many years of service for the cause of justice. It is very well if they were selected on account of their vast experience, but I was inclined to believe that many of them did their work so as to get rid of it.
I was able to realize that although we have excellent judges, although in the province of Quebec, for instance, courts had many excellent judges, the problem would not be solved. As a matter of fact, in the welfare court at 410 Bellechasse Street East in Montreal-for the information of the Solicitor General-there are 18 of them, each of whom hears more than 3,000 cases per year. One can imagine the results.
Let us pass the bill we want, let us make the partisan policy we want in connection with this bill, let us judge as many young people as we want, let us appoint the best judges we want, if we do not meet these two basic conditions, we will still be left with a system of poultices on wooden legs and nothing will be settled. On the contrary, the crime rate will increase as well as the number of repeaters.
Mr. Speaker, we must not only appoint a greater number of judges to grant better justice to those young people but we must-and this is most urgent-set up the required rehabilitation centres to put them back into a climate that will help them develop their personality.
If you put a rotten apple inside a barrel of good apples the rotten apple will not be changed by the barrel of good apples. It is more likely that the whole barrel will go bad because of that single rotten apple. The only way to deal with this problem, in the barrel of apples, is to take the rotten apple and put it elsewhere or make marmelade with it. We must prevent this rotten apple from infecting the rest of the barrel. This depends on our priorities. I hope I will be forgiven this example taken from nature but things have gone that far today with criminality in Canada.
If we genuinely want to help the young-and I do not mean they should be put in an ivory tower-the should be given an opportunity to truly live their lives thanks to personal rehabilitation, and psychologists, psychoanalists, social workers, probation officers, and so forth, could help them achieve it.
Mr. Speaker, when attending hearings before the Welfare Court, when examining the cases before a judge, when witnessing the speed with which the work must be done, because there are too few judges, and this, even though the technical means are enormous, one cannot but doubt that the administration of the bill now before the House will bring effective results.

March 24, 1971
Young Offenders Act
This is why I urge the minister, even if this may not seem in order, even if the matter does not come under federal jurisdiction, to do something.
Mr. Speaker, if we keep hiding behind jurisdictions, if the constitution and financial reasons keep us from settling this problem, if Ottawa says: "This is a problem pertaining to Quebec", and if Quebec says: "We have no money, let Ottawa provide us with some", the young will continue to rot, to fill unhealthy rehabilitation centres, and the problem will remain unsolved.
I think that the Solicitor General who does understand the nature of the problem will do everything in his power to hustle Quebec-in case Quebec is unable to assume its responsibilities in this area-and make them appoint a larger number of capable judges from among people who are interested in helping our youngsters, and thus solve the problem.
To further support my claim, let me give you some official figures. I will only tell you the number of cases heard during the month of December, 1970 by Mr. Justice Leandre Prevost of the welfare court.
On December 1, Justice Prevost disposed of 24 cases. A judge's day, like that of a member of Parliament, has only 24 hours. Accordingly, the conclusion is that not much time was devoted to each case. It is not his fault, it is the system! One cannot solve the problem simply by blaming the Constitution for it.
On December 2, the judge heard 21 cases. On December 4, 13 cases. On December 7, 20 cases. On December 9, 28 appearances, 28 cases, and so forth. On December 28, 36 cases. On some days, he heard more than 55 cases, so that for the month of December, he heard a total of 258 cases.
I shall say more about this. From January 1 to December 31 inclusive, 1970, Justice Leandre Prevost, who does his possible best, heard 2,467 cases about young people who need personalized understanding, who need a helping hand.
One probation officer may have to deal with very many young people. The judge can only read the file quickly and try to assess each case to the best of his knowledge. Under these conditions, you cannot expect a man to work more than 24 hours a day.
A judge told me last Thursday: "Give us the tools, we will do the job". Who indeed should provide these tool, Mr. Speaker, if not federal and provincial members? We must make up our minds once and for all.
Before resuming my seat, I urge again the minister to give the tools to people dealing with this problem so that they can do their job in a truly human fashion with a view to rehabilitating individuals.
I would hate to hear the minister say that he cannot act because this is beyond his jurisdiction. If the Solicitor General is really sincere, and I do not doubt it, and wishes to help young delinquents, he will do everything in his power to wake Quebec up so that this province will assume its responsibilities, so that we will really be able to give proper tools to the people who work in this
field to solve the problem, especially by showing more concern for rehabilitation than for criminality.
Mr. Speaker, welfare courts as well as training centres should smell less of criminals, of charges, of legal technicalities and more of understanding, humanization, personal service given to an individual who maybe only waits for this chance to survive.
I have here some very interesting statistics taken from the magazine Le jeune delinquant homicide which was printed after a seminar held at Boscoville, in Montreal, on June 10, 1970. Thirteen cases are shown, without names, of young people guilty of murder and manslaughter.
At first sight, they seem guilty, dangerous and they must be sent to prison. Analyzing the picture and studying the chapter entitled "Understanding between parents", one finds that most cases relate to disputes, poor understanding, misunderstanding between common law partners, separated couples and so on.
Can the youngster who has been brought up in such surroundings be blamed? No. It will then be necessary in social welfare courts and rehabilitation centres to take into account that he has suffered from lack of understanding. Let us give him that understanding. He has been lacking fatherly and motherly love. Let us give him that love. He has asked for a break, the possibility of a dialogue. Let us give him that break, that possibility of a dialogue and then the frequency of juvenile delinquency or relapse will surely decrease.
Mr. Justice Trahan told me something that cut me to the heart but which was true. Incidentally, he is a really remarkable man. He told me: "Andre, I heard the cases of some fathers, then I judged their sons and today, I judge their grandsons".
Mr. Speaker, this proves that our system is topsy-turvy and if we do not set it right, we shall have to recognize that it is administered by the most mixed-up people that ever existed.
Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Solicitor General is aware of the problem and that he is prepared to do his utmost to solve it. I would like him to agree with me that the bill is not enough, and that neither the administrative, legal or constitutional barriers, nor the financial limitations should prevent us from taking the necessary steps. No price is too high to guarantee the sound and normal development of a human being, particularly if that person is defenceless and resourceless.


Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday when I spoke on Bill C-192 which is now under consideration, I drew the attention of the Solicitor General (Mr. Goyer) on the advisability of amending some provisions of that bill. I referred to clause 2(o), clause 17 (1X2), clause 30(1X4X5), clause 59(2)(a)(b) and clause 60(4).
I think the government is taking a forward step in introducing this bill. I should like, however, to point out a specific aspect of the bill, namely the cause of delinquency in our country. Some reasons prompted the government to amend the Juvenile Delinquents Act and it is surely not because that legislation had become useless.
[Mr. Fortin.1
March 24, 1971

On the contrary, the number of juvenile delinquents is increasing daily, especially in our urban centres.
I hope the government is aware that a certain responsibility must be assumed in this particular case and, by the way, every time members from our party have moved non-confidence motions,-the question of the vital minimum required for parents kept coming back. If a married couple with one, two, three or four children, has to live in a decent but very small tenement, and pay a rent that is very high, the mother has to go to work.
In fact, because of the rising cost of living in the last three, four or five years, parents have changed their plans in order to be able to support their brood. If the mother has to stay away from the house six, seven, eight, nine or ten hours a day, and this, five days a week, she must entrust the care of her children to the eldest girl, aged six, seven, or eight, who goes to school two, three or four days a week.
If something wrong happens in that home, the police investigates and then, the trouble starts. When the child sees a policeman barging in his home, because a neighbour complained that the children were trying to start a fire or had guests and were making an awful noise, the child develops an instinctive fear of the police. Therefore, at the start, this child is visited by an individual who is a complete stranger to his family, which causes an emotional disturbance that often brings the child before a judge before he is 18 or 20. In fact it has often been realized in juvenile courts that serious problems had developed from very minor causes which had developed into problems almost impossible to solve.
Why? Because of the absence of the parents.
I would also like to point out to the House that, as soon as a mother begins to work outside the home, especially in the cities, she begins, in most cases, to lose interest in her children and her husband. When, in the evening, the husband finds his wife tired and uninterested in her housekeeping, as was not the case previously, he goes to the tavern and takes a drink to forget his dissatisfaction. A few months or a few years later, this family finds itself facing very serious problems.
I believe that juvenile courts do their best, but the system appears to be organized in such a way as to promote an increase in juvenile delinquency each year, as my good friend the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) was saying a short while ago, and when the judge has passed judgment on the great-grandmother, the grandmother, the mother, and the young girl of 7, 8 10 or 12, everything is still the way it was before.
We should take active steps to change the laws whose purpose it is to settle most problems, juvenile delinquency in particular.
I am not against improving of the situation along the present lines, but I suggest that we should solve the real problems.
The way the government rules this country now, by introducing only stop-gap legislation, reminds me of the farmer, whose land is flooded every spring but who does
Young Offenders Act
not think of building a dam, which would eliminate the problem, once and for all.
I do not believe there will come a time when juvenile delinquency no longer exists, but I believe we should do something to reduce the number of victims of the government policy, especially children and young people from large families.
We are living in a chain system. The government decides that it wants to fight the alleged inflation created by the previous government. Therefore, plants cut down their production and lay off employees, who turn to unemployment benefits, thus increasing the tax burden of other taxpayers. Often, unemployment insurance benefits do not allow a family to live decently. Then, parents get discouraged and cease to take their responsibilities. Children, left to themselves, with parents socially fallen, set out on new adventures to make up for the shortcomings of the family environment. And this results in more and more juvenile delinquents.
This bill purports to solve the problem of young offenders, but should we not discuss also the problem of the parents of these young offenders who are offenders themselves?
Recently I had the opportunity to visit a secondary school with 810 students aged between 12 and 15. The parents of these children must have been 1,500 to 1,600 in number. Now then, there were only 22 of us parents. Where were the others? Nobody knows. Those parents who do not look after their children should be taken care of by some of the provisions of this act which would once and for all make it an obligation for them to look after their youngsters. Those parents should be fined or jailed at least in cases of outright negligence.
Is it not somewhat ridiculous that we should introduce a piece of legislation which tends to solve the problems of young offenders without concern for the responsibilities of the parents? I am positive that there are very many people who wonder what responsibility the government has in this field. And each and every Canadian should be wondering about that. Then they might decide to tackle the situation starting with the ones that are truly responsible.
The ones who are really to be blamed in 1970 are the parents who borrow money irresponsibly, who think only about themselves and forget those for whom they assumed some obligations, namely their children.
For the benefit of all members of this House, I should like to state a few principles. Let me report the thoughts expressed by senator Edward Kennedy when he discussed the basic obligation for parents to look after their children. This vital obligation is not only of a financial nature. Let me quote:
No human need is more basic than the need for personal security. No desire is more instinctive than the desire for freedom from fear. Unless we can feel secure at home and in the streets, if we are threatened-be it by the officer of a police state or by a common criminal-then we are not free.
The provision of this protection which is the cornerstone of freedom and safety is the prime responsibility of a government and it is discharged by the judicial power. An economist would add: "To be free, you must have a little money".

March 24, 1971
Young Offenders Act
As far as I am concerned, I am saying that one must at least have the basic necessities.
Mr. Speaker, I believe the government should seriously consider the whole system respecting juvenile delinquency. They must completely overhaul the current aspects of children's behaviour, including the attitude of parents towards their children. They must amend the Criminal Code or pass a law requiring parents to assume their responsibilities.
In my opinion, we must not either do what we are doing, that is be concerned about children without
bothering with parents, if we want the number of juvenile delinquents to decline.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Six o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: I wish all hon. members a pleasant evening and a good night's sleep.
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.

Thursday, March 25, 1971