1971-02-05

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, when I conveyed to the Canadian National Railways the report of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications some weeks ago I undertook at the first opportunity to return to the House with the response of the CNR to the various proposals which were contained in that report which had to do, of course, with the company's pension plan.
I am glad to be able to inform the House that I have been advised by the chairman and the president of Canadian National of steps being taken by the company to offer a substantial measure of relief to its existing pensioners because of the increase in the cost of living.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Pensioners under the Canadian National 1959 pension plan who retired on or before December 31, 1969, will have their pensions increased by 2 per cent for each year of retirement. For example, a pensioner who retired in 1969 will have his pension increased by 2 per cent; one who retired in 1960 will have his pension increased by 20 per cent; one who retired in 1950 will have his pension increased by 40 per cent, and so on. Similar increases will be made, I am pleased to say, in survivor benefits being paid to widows of deceased pensioners.
In the case of pensioners under the 1935 Canadian National pension plan, the non-contributory basic pension of $25 per month will be increased to $50 per month for those who retired in 1965 and prior years. For those who retired in 1966, 1967, 1968 and 1969, the increase will be $20, $15, $10 and $5 respectively, since such pensioners are in receipt of pensions under the Canada and Quebec pension plans which more than make up the difference. These increases will be effective from January 1 of this year and payment will commence just as soon as the necessary procedures can be instituted, which will probably be April next.
I might point out that as announced by the company last fall, Canadian National 1935 plan pensioners who are in receipt of pensions toward which they had contributed now have the right to have their pensions recalculated
under the 1959 or 1952 plan in force when they retired. If it is in their interest to do so, they will, of course, also receive the increases now instituted for 1959 plan pensioners.
These measures substantially implement the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications in so far as they relate to existing pensioners. Recommendations of the committee relating to employees in service have been included with the wage demands of certain bargaining groups and are currently the subject of negotiation between the railways and unions concerned. I am sure that all hon. members of the House will be as pleased as I am at this very welcome news for these pensioners of Canadian National Railways.


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I should like to thank the minister for his courtesy in providing me with a copy of his statement before coming into the House. I must say that it is a case of the mills of the gods grinding rather slowly, since this is something that had been requested over a considerable period of time.
I do not think that we are giving these pensioners all that much when one considers what inflation has done to their pensions over most of the past decade. Nevertheless, this action does show there is a certain benefit in the parliamentary process and underlines the value of persistence, of committee study, and of digging in one's heels from time to time as a member of the opposition. Only a week ago I was talking to one of the gentlemen who made the pension decision and it certainly had not been made as of last Friday. He asked me what was going to happen to the CN and Air Canada financing bill that is before the House of Commons. I told him that I suspected it would come in for considerable scrutiny, even to the extent of an intensive study of the minutiae, unless we could be given some assurance that these old railway pensioners were being looked after. Apparently the message did get through. I assume that what has been done by Canadian National Railways will also include the pensioners of those older railways that now form part of the CN system.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I repeat that while the news is welcome in that it means the winning of a battle that has been carried on for a considerable period of time, the fact is that with the 2 per cent formula these pensioners have not been placed in the position in which they should have been in the first place.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, for those of us who have been working for an

February 5, 1971
Increase in C.N.R. Pensions
increase in the pensions of retired Canadian National employees for a long time-in my own case for nearly 25 years-this is a very welcome announcement. I enjoyed the comments just made by the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave) about some of the factors that have led to action being taken, such as our persistence over the years and the assurance in the last session or two that Canadian National matters would be debated rather fully. I think these as well as other factors have contributed to the realization that a favourable decision had to be made.
I welcome the support I have had in my own efforts from my colleagues who joined us in this parliament, the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) and the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Skoberg). They, along with others, have been members of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications. I think it is another tribute to our committee system that as a result of deliberations in a committee there are times when an unanimous decision can be reached. This is what happened in that committee, and on behalf of all members of the committee I think I can say that each one was determined that in this session this objective would be achieved. I commend the members of that committee from all parties for the determination they have shown. It has now paid off.
I congratulate the many thousands of retired employees of the Canadian National Railways who will benefit from what has now been announced. But I am afraid I must also, in my own mind at least, think of the many thousands who should have had this increase over the years but who have passed on while we have been fighting this battle.
Mr. Speaker, the basic outlines of the plan so far as it goes are good. As the minister said, the proposal is somewhat along the line recommended by the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications, but there are two or three gaps to which I should like to draw attention.
In the first place, the plan for public servants which was announced on December 19, 1969, and put into effect on April 1, 1970, provided not only for 2 per cent per year for each year since retirement but provided for that 2 per cent to be compounded back over the years, so that 20 years, for example, would amount to much more than 40 per cent. I regret that this plan does not include that compounding element.
The second shortcoming is that in the plan for public servants not only were immediate increases for the number of years of retirement put into effect but it was provided that in subsequent years there would be further increases as the cost of living went up. In this case it seems to be an ad hoc increase with no provision for further increases as the cost of living goes up in the years that lie ahead. I hope that both these shortcomings will be looked at by Canadian National and that there will be improvements along these lines.
In particular, I think that the existing CNR pensioners must get the assurance that this increase is not the last they are going to get, and that as the cost of living continues to go up they will get further increases just as retired public servants get them and just as others who have this provision get them.
The other gap is one to which the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) referred. I mention it, but I do not do so in a quarrelsome fashion. He referred to the fact that there is nothing in this plan respecting those now in service. In the case of public servants we did the whole job at once. We guaranteed to those now working increases after they retire. The minister says that in the case of those now in service in the CNR this matter has been left to collective bargaining. I do not quarrel with that, but I trust that because of this precedent which has been set, because of other like precedents, and because of the wide concern of employees generally for such improvements, the result of collective bargaining will be to include a provision for the automatic escalation of Canadian National pensions for those now working when they retire.
Mr. Speaker, I have only one other word: Canadian Pacific Railway, please take note!
ITranslationJ


Mr. Real Caouelie (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, we sincerely commend the minister for the announcement he has just made to the House. The persons who will be most happy about this announcement will certainly be the retired employees of the Canadian National Railways who for years have been asking for an adjustment of their pensions.
We realize that this increase will not satisfy all former CNR employees but this is a beginning and pensioners who devoted their lives to the service of the Canadian public deserve some consideration after they retire.
We were happy to hear the minister say how much attention the government pays to the representations of CNR pensioners. As I just said, this is only a beginning and I only wish for one thing: that the government will not stop following so good a course.



AGRICULTURE


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the House that the Canadian Dairy Commission will increase its purchase prices on skim milk powder and cheddar cheese, effective February 8.
[Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre) .1
February 5, 1971

The new price for skim milk powder will be 24 cents per pound; it is now 20 cents. The basic price for Cheddar cheese is to be 51 cents per pound; it is now 47 cents.
These increases, which are the first in four years, will permit an improvement in market prices to producers for manufacturing milk. Hon. members will, of course, appreciate that negotiations with respect to milk prices to producers fall under the jurisdiction of the provincial agencies.
Two recent developments have made it possible to take this action at this time. The most important was the agreement between the commission and the respective authorities of Quebec and Ontario for a supply management program in those two major producing provinces, which I announced to the House on January 14. This guards against the possibility of an improvement in prices to producers resulting in unmanageable surpluses.
The situation on skim milk powder has changed dramatically in the past year. While production of this commodity is still considerably in excess of Canadian use, the price in export markets has improved substantially and the commission expects to have disposed of virtually all its stocks when the new heavy producing season starts in April.
These increases will have little effect on consumer prices. The new cheese price is slightly under the prices in the market in recent weeks. Skim milk powder is used to a considerable extent for industrial purposes.
It will be recalled that when the dairy support program was announced for the year ending March 31 the rate of holdback from subsidy payments, to finance the cost of disposing of surpluses, was set at 26 cents per 100 pounds of milk on deliveries by producers up to their subsidy quotas and $1.25 on deliveries in excess of subsidy quotas. This was calculated to yield an average of about 39 cents on all milk deliveries by quota holders.
When market quotas for manufacturing milk were established in Ontario and Quebec, effective December 1, 1970, the commission made it clear that the 26 cent rate was applicable only to March 31, 1971, and that the rate as of April 1 would be reviewed in relation to the cost of disposing of surpluses in the 1971-72 year. The commission will, over the next few weeks and in consultation with its advisers, determine the rates necessary to finance its export operations in the year starting April 1.


Mr. H. W. Danforth (Kenl-Essex):: Mr. Speaker, in replying to the statement made this morning by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson), may I point out to the House that it was a rather curious statement. It indicates in no uncertain terms that there will be no increase in the prices to consumers in certain commodities. I think this will meet with general favour across the nation. What I am concerned about is the indication that there is to be an increase in the support price for powdered milk and for cheese. There is also an indication in the minister's statement that this will not cost the gov-
Agriculture
ernment anything. It is really hard to judge from this statement whether the producers will actually receive an increase. The minister stated that stocks of skim milk powder are almost depleted and that the price of 51 cents for cheese is lower than the current market price. Therefore this morning's announcement will not cost the government anything more unless there is a tremendous downward trend in the market place.
It is interesting to note that there is an indication of a further government policy-part has been announced to the House-whereby the holdback on overproduction of manufacturing milk will be doubled both for export sales and when the milk is disposed of to dairies. Despite the very optimistic tone of the minister's statement this morning I fail to see-I hope I am wrong-how the dairy producer will, in face of the over-all program, receive more for his production rather than less. When the dairy industry is made aware of this announcement, it will be very interesting indeed to find out what their reaction will be.
I want to make one final point concerning the government's policy toward the dairy industry. That policy is directed toward the elimination of a government subsidy to the dairy industry. It is bringing this about by a general over-all policy of curtailment of production in Canada. I am not so certain that this policy is correct in face of indications that over-all dairy production in the world is not sufficient to meet current world needs. This evidence is borne out by the disposal of our skim milk powder which, until a few years ago, was very hard to dispose of. There is an increased demand for skim milk powder. Our own production in Canada is so close to our consumption that there is a danger that from time to time we will have to import dairy products to a greater degree than we export them.
I believe the dairy industry will look very closely at this announcement and other announcements on dairy policy, because we may find in the very near future that we have curtailed our dairy industry to such a degree that it will not even be able to meet domestic requirements.


Mr. Rod Thomson (Battleford-Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) has announced that dairy farmers will receive an increase in the price of some of their products. We are happy to note that there will be an increase. Certainly farmers' costs have continued to rise and any such increase will at least help to meet a portion of the increase in their costs. While we agree that there should be some management of dairy supplies, we advocate a more positive approach to the manufacture and sale of new dairy products similar to what has been done in Europe. We feel that the federal government should give more leadership in the manufacture and sale of new dairy products.


Mr. C. A. Gauthier (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to congratulate the Minister of Agricul-

February 5, 1971
Agriculture
ture (Mr. Olson) for his statement. We have not had too many chances to congratulate him in recent months, but I believe he is to be commended this morning for his motion providing that the Canadian Dairy Commission raise the price of both cheddar cheese and skim milk powder.
The purchase price of both skim milk powder and Cheddar cheese will be increased by 4 cents. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that these steps will get the surplus to move rapidly in order to enable the government to allow farmers to increase their quotas. I believe that, at the present time, it is the quota system that creates more problems for the farmers.
The minister also tells us that the prices paid to milk producers are set by provincial agencies. According to the recent agreements, provincial agencies administer this sector, and I hope that the milk producers associations, the co-operatives and the federations will not use this increase to add to their expenses, but will pass it on to the producers. In fact, I am sure that the minister's first objective was to help the milk producer, who is today in such dire need of assistance. I hope that the new administrators of this sector, that is the agricultural federations and co-operatives, will offer better prices to the milk producers.
We are very happy with this statement and we hope, once again that the farmers will benefit from it while they are waiting for a higher subsidy in respect of quotas. If we want the farmer to get as fair a price as that paid for fluid milk, the government will have to consider increasing the price to $1.25 per hundredweight, which is the actual price paid for subsidized quotas, and this increase should not come into effect after March 1, 1971.
As I said, we are happy and I hope the farmers will benefit from this 100 per cent.



MANPOWER


Mr. Louis-Roland Comeau (South Western Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I beg the unanimous consent of the House in order to move a motion to discuss a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.

Yesterday the Minister of Manpower and Immigration admitted outside the House that the general economic situation is worse than a year ago, and that more students will be unemployed this summer than was the case last year. Student unemployment last year would have been 10 per cent greater if the federal and provincial
governments had not provided makeshift programs which private business could not while it slumped under a government created recession.
In Manitoba the minister's manpower department is now training college graduates to become businessmen at a time when the government has declared that businessmen and their employees are surplus to government policy. Mr. Speaker, I move the following motion, seconded by the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Lundrigan):
That this House condemns the government for its policy of providing students with paper diplomas instead of paper pay cheques.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the motion proposed by the hon. member for South Western Nova. The hon. member requires the unanimous consent of the House in order to put the motion.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity and the motion cannot be put.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, last Tuesday the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources said he would keep the House informed regarding negotiations between Home Oil and Ashland Oil. I wonder if he is going to make a statement on that matter this morning?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This kind of question should normally be asked during the question period and consent sought to revert to motions. However, the question has been asked and as the matter is of interest to the House perhaps the minister might reply to the hon. member's question.


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to make a statement on motions this morning.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In

February 5, 1971

light of the deepening youth and student unemployment crisis and in light of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration's pessimistic projections for the next six months, will the Prime Minister now advise the House whether he will put unemployment and also the question of financial assistance to the provinces as the first priority on the agenda of the premiers' conference to work out a comprehensive job-creating program now?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, 1 already confirmed yesterday in response to the Leader of the Opposition that this topic would be discussed at the federal-provincial conference on Monday and Tuesday.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: In light of the fact that we now have mass unemployment among young people, and in light of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration's estimate that there will be 300,000 more students on the labour market this summer, what emergency employment measures has the federal government to recommend to the provinces at that conference? Could the Prime Minister briefly outline any new emergency legislation or new ideas or programs that he now has in mind?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the conference proceedings are, at the request of all participants, in camera, and it would not be appropriate for me to tell the House what is going to transpire there.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Without disclosing any goodies he has up his sleeve, has the Prime Minister any suggestion to make to the provinces in regard to helping these young people, particularly the 300,000 students who are coming into the labour market on May 1 from our universities?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the question is a repetition of the previous one read by the hon. member, but I can tell him I have no goodies up my sleeve.



UNEMPLOYMENT-PLANS FOR PROVISION OF SUMMER JOBS FOR STUDENTS

Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, in light of the statement made by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration yesterday, and in light of the statement by the Canadian Student Liberals about the deepening unemployment crisis affecting students, would the Prime Minister tell the House whether the government is working on new plans, first of all so that more students will be employed this summer and, second, so that students who do get jobs will be employed for more than one or two months as was the case with so many of them last summer?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the government is working on plans for student employment this summer. I might say in reference to that publication that it very badly misquoted things I never said.
Inquiries of the Ministry UNEMPLOYMENT-JOBS TO BE CREATED BY LOAN FUND TO PROVINCES


Louis-Roland Comeau: Mr. Speaker, knowing that parliamentary secretaries are in the news these days I wish to direct a question to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance. In view of the crisis among young people generally across the country, which will deepen in the coming summer, can the parliamentary secretary state how many new jobs will be created by the $160 million loan fund made available to the provinces?


Mr. P. M. Mahoney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I will bring the question to the minister's attention. The hon. member can be assured that it will be answered on a day when the Department of Finance is answering questions in the House.


Louis-Roland Comeau: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, that question was already taken as notice and I still do not have an answer. I thought the parliamentary secretary would have been interested and would follow it up.



FORECASTS OF STUDENT UNEMPLOYMENT IN 1971

Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingaie):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. Has the government made any projections about the extent of student unemployment in 1971, and is he prepared to apprise the House and the country of the projections which have been made in order to give students, members of the public and members of the House of Commons an opportunity to make positive recommendations to the government to alleviate the problem?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I know of no such projections, Mr. Speaker, but the Minister of Manpower and Immigration may have made some. Perhaps the question could be addressed to him.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the Prime Minister plans to render the Minister of Manpower and Immigration at least partly unemployed by lifting from him his duty and responsibility for the Wheat Board, so that he will have-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I regret very much that the question as asked is not in order. The hon. member appears to be making a submission or representation and as such I would not think the question is in order.


John Howard Lundrigan: May I rephrase my question. Will the Minister of Manpower and Immigration and of the Wheat Board or some other minister be designated to assume full responsibility for the unemployment problem in the country during a period when it has never been worse?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Judging by the question of the hon. member, the research staff of the Official Opposition must be partly unemployed.

February 5, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry


John Howard Lundrigan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, judging by the presence in the House of just a handful of ministers today it looks like there will be a lot more unemployment. I would like to say, that the attitude of the Prime Minister-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member knows that he cannot engage in debate. The hon. member prefaces his supplementary by stating that he wants to say something. Unfortunately the rules provide that he may only ask a question and not make a statement. If he has a supplementary the Chair will allow the hon. member to ask it.


John Howard Lundrigan: I will not try to compete with the Prime Minister in being a smart-aleck.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



UNEMPLOYMENT-PLANS FOR PROVISION OF SUMMER JOBS FOR QUEBEC STUDENTS

Mr. Lome Nysirom (York+on-Melville):: In view of the fact that approximately 18 per cent of the student population in Quebec were unable to find jobs last summer and in view of the present circumstances in that province, can the Prime Minister state whether any plans have been made to rectify that situation this summer?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the Prime Minister could reply to the question of the hon. member. However, I suggest to hon. members that the type of questions they are now asking should normally be answered by a general statement. The questions are very general. They may be pertinent, relevant and important, but they are phrased in such a way that normally they should be replied to by way of a statement. Having said that, the Prime Minister might reply to the question asked by the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I have no answer.


Mr. Speaker:: There are a number of hon. members who have supplementaries, but perhaps we might return to those who have supplementaries in a short while.


Mr. Maclnnis:: I rise on a point of order. On a number of occasions it is the custom for the Chair to rule questions out of order. Does this not also apply to answers [DOT]which are out of order? Should the Prime Minister not have been called to order on several of his answers today?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of
Energy, Mines and Resources arising out of his promise on Tuesday that he would keep the House informed with regard to the negotiations which are going on between Home Oil Company of Calgary and Ashland Oil Company of Kentucky. Has an agreement virtually been reached which will leave the ownership of the company mainly in Canadian hands but place virtual control in the hands of Ashland Oil Incorporated of Kentucky?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, to the best of my knowledge agreements are either reached or not reached. There is no such thing as "virtually having been reached". I do not think I can do anything useful by disclosing the state of negotiations at this time. I will inform the House when I have something definite to report. In the meantime, I will continue to use my office and such authority as I have under the law to do what I can to maintain Home Oil as a Canadian Company.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: On
Tuesday, as recorded on page 2975 of Hansard, the minister stated:
I have urged upon them the desirability of maintaining a majority Canadian ownership and Canadian control in this company.
Has the minister been successful in assuring himself that there will be continued Canadian ownership and Canadian control of Home Oil Company?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I have no way of so assuring myself. Such is the case to date. As I stated, I will continue to do my best to assure that this situation continues.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I note that the minister has used the word "authority". Has he sought advice from the legal officers to determine whether he or his department or the government has the authority to interfere with this sale? I am thinking of the number of shareholders of this company across Canada and the effect on them and the company. Has the minister sought advice from the legal officers on the use of the same authority he used in connection with Denison Mines involving a completely different commodity, uranium?


John James Greene: In the case of Denison Mines, Mr. Speaker, it has been indicated that legislation will be brought before the House with regard to the ownership of uranium in Canada. If my understanding of the law is correct, this House can do anything except make a man a woman.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: May I follow that up, Mr. Speaker? Now that the cat is out of the bag, is the government preparing legislation with regard to provincial fields where the federal government has no authority?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, any legislation that we propose will be within our authority and will be brought before the House in the proper manner.

February 5, 1971



INCREASED ACQUISITION OF IMPERIAL OIL SHARES BY STANDARD OIL OF NEW JERSEY

Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Is the minister looking into reports that in the last few months Standard Oil Company of New Jersey has increasingly been acquiring shares in Imperial Oil of Canada and is now reported to own 68 per cent of the shares of that company?


John James Greene: I am not familiar with those particular statistics, Mr. Speaker. I believe that over the years Standard Oil has, to the best of my knowledge, controlled Imperial Oil of Canada. It was my understanding that in past years a greater proportion of the stock of Imperial Oil had been made available to Canadians.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Will the minister look into the reports that Standard Oil of New Jersey has been greatly increasing its holdings in Imperial Oil during the last two or three months?


John James Greene: I will be pleased to do that, Mr. Speaker.
sj:	sjs



PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

[Stage Direction]
INQUIRY AS TO RESIGNATION OF CHAIRMAN AND/OR OTHER COMMISSIONERS
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: I wish to direct my question to the Prime Minister. Has the government received the resignation of Mr. John Carson, the chairman of the Public Service Commission, and/or any of the other commissioners as a result of the way in which the government has fumbled the handling of the memorandum in connection with Francophones?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question is not in correct procedural terms. The hon. member might like to rephrase his question.


Gerald William Baldwin: I will restrain my feelings and not ask the last part of the question. Has the government received the resignation of Mr. John Carson, the chairman of the Public Service Commission and/or any of the other commissioners?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I had not received it when I left my office this morning. I will check when I return. I can assure the House that if I do receive a resignation I will turn it down and ask the member to reconsider because they should not be discouraged by the bungling of the opposition.



CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breion-The Sydneys):: I have a question for the Prime Minister. In view of the concern 23786-55
Inquiries of the Ministry
expressed by the Cape Breton Deaneries of the Roman Catholic Church and the Cape Breton Council of Churches regarding the severe unemployment problem which is reaching crisis proportions in Cape Breton, and in view of the alarm expressed by these bodies concerning the apparent inactivity of the Cape Breton Development Corporation in developing programs to alleviate this grave situation, will the Prime Minister consider making a statement, or having the appropriate minister do so, as soon as possible indicating the short and the longterm plans of the corporation? In other words, what is the blueprint for the future of Cape Breton in so far as Devco is concerned?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will take the question as notice, Mr. Speaker.



CANADIAN CONSTITUTION


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: I have a question for the Prime Minister. In view of the significance of the forthcoming meeting of Ministers of Justice, I have given him notice. Have the federal and Quebec governments agreed upon a formula for repatriation of the British North America Act and on an amending formula, as reported in today's Montreal Gazette in a Canadian Press story which states that the Quebec-Ottawa agreement has been worked out since last fall?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker. I thank the hon. member for giving me notice. I must say that this story is incorrect. What is correct is that the federal government and the provinces have been carrying out the mandate given to them by the September conference which suggested that parallel to the work which was proceeding bilateral talks should develop between the federal government and the various provinces. Since that September conference we have carried out our mandate. There have been meetings with all provinces trying to find ways of progressing with the constitutional debate. Proposals have been put forward by Quebec, and indeed by other provinces, but no agreement has been reached.
*	* Ht



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Has the right hon. gentleman received a protest from the mayor of Culebra against the shelling of that island by Canadian forces and, if so, what response has he made to the protest?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: As a result of the news story I did check with my office and I had

February 5, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
received no such correspondence before entering the House. I know that the Minister of National Defence is prepared to deal with the substance of the matter if he is requested to do so.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I would so request him, then.


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I am advised that Canadian naval units were not in the vicinity of Puerto Rico on the date mentioned in the news story which appeared in the Globe and Mail, that is, January 21. They were on station and shelling on January 27 and 28. On the first of these days no difficulties arose and no helicopters were airborne. On the second day Canadian ships took their place on station after ships of other countries. The safety officer sent a signal indicating that ships should cease firing because there was someone on the range. A Canadian helicopter participated in a search, with United States aircraft, to see whether the person could be located. No one was located within the area and the safety officer gave instructions to resume firing again.
With regard to one aspect of the report, I might tell the hon. member that tear gas is not carried in the inventory of Maritime Command and at no time on the day in question did the helicopter land or drop anything on the range. These are the facts of the situation as communicated to me.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Can the
minister assure us that exercises of this sort will not take place in future near places where people live?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: This particular operation was carried out under the NATO Atlantic Command and the arrangements were made with the NATO states involved in the exercise. In this case the range was within the jurisdiction of the United States authorities; the question might be discussed with them, but it seems to me they are the sovereign authority in this case.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I have a question for the Prime Minister. In view of reports that the government has just commuted the death sentence of a convicted killer of a policeman, the first time this has occurred in the absence of a recommendation for mercy from the jury, will the government at least be honest with the people of Canada and make it clear that it has no intention of carrying out the existing law by presenting parliament with proposals for appropriate changes in the Criminal Code so that the people may at least have an opportunity to express their views on the subject?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I cannot make that statement because the government does carry out the law and it will continue to carry out the provisions of the law. The law never did abolish the prerogative of mercy; it always rests with the Crown.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



URBAN AFFAIRS


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: I wish to direct a question to the minister in charge of housing. It has to do with a statement he made, I believe, in June 1970, in which he indicated to the House that he intended to convene a federal-provincial-municipal conference early in 1971. In view of the increasing economic and social difficulties faced by our cities, involving housing, municipal affairs, welfare, urban transportation and high unemployment, and bearing in mind that numerous provincial and municipal representatives have actively sought discussions on these matters and that the cities will likely have no representation at the forthcoming conference, will the minister tell the House why he has not been able to call such a conference as he himself proposed? What has prevented him from doing so and does he still intend to call one in view of the urgency of the situation?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister without Portfolio):: do not think I said I would convene such a meeting, Mr. Speaker. That, of course, would not be proper, since jurisdiction affecting municipalities clearly lies with the provinces. However, I did indicate the willingness of the government to be a party to three-level consultation arrangements. I believe I can say with confidence that this idea has been furthered in the course of informal talks with several ministers of municipal affairs and, more recently, by letter. When, precisely, these discus-tions will take place, and what form they will take, is a matter for the provincial ministers to decide, as is proper. I expect to have a more definitive response shortly.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I believe that in June, 1970, the minister also indicated to the House-he will correct me if I am wrong-that he was prepared to establish a national urban council. I hope he is in a position to tell the House when he intends to have this organization set up, or, if not, what has caused the hold-up.


Robert Knight Andras: This is one and the same subject. The question of tri-level consultation was deeply embedded in the proposal for an urban council. It is one of the forms of arrangement to which I was referring and my previous comment as to the role played by the provinces applies to this as well. It is unquestionably dependent upon agreement between ourselves and the provincial governments.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Is it possible for the minister to give an assurance that immediately after the forthcoming confer-

February 5, 1971

ence he will use his good offices, together with those of his colleagues, to see that negotiations are begun toward a solution of the problems faced by municipal and provincial authorities. It is the municipal authorities who appear to be hit hardest.


Robert Knight Andras: I do not think anyone could resist that proposition. It is a good suggestion. I might add that it would be helpful if the House could make progress with the government organization bill, so that at least that ministry could become legitimate.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey):: I have a question I wished to direct to the Minister fo Labour or the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, but I do not see either in the House. Perhaps somebody else across the way could take it as notice. Having regard to the high level of unemployment, especially among our youth, may I ask whether representations have been received from British Columbia, for example, from the Parent-Teacher Federation of British Columbia, urging that what are described as misleading advertisements in European newspapers advertising job opportunities in Canada should be discontinued until such time as the present high level of unemployment has been reduced?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: 

AIR CANADA


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancasler):: I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Has the recent fate of Rolls-Royce affected our position with respect to the Lockheed air buses and, if so, can the minister tell us whether he has taken steps to protect Air Canada's interest therein?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I met
yesterday with the chairman of the board of Air Canada to discuss this matter. It is still not clear whether the actions of the British government are such that Rolls-Royce will be able to continue its manufacture of that particular engine. We are watching the situation closely, 23786-551
Inquiries of the Ministry
especially as to the relationship between Rolls-Royce and Lockheed. I shall be glad to report as soon as there is anything definite I can say.


Mr. E. B. Osier (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question supplementary to a previous question. With regard to the Lockheed contract and the existing Rolls-Royce problems, can the Minister of Transport assure the House that Air Canada will keep a very close eye on possible alternative engines since Bristol Aerospace in Winnipeg has a very large contract that is crucial to employment at the company?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, it is not really a question of an alternative engine; the issue really becomes one of whether Lockheed itself will be able to proceed with this particular program in view of the apparent breakdown of its relationship with Rolls-Royce. If, however, for any reason the entire project should fail to proceed, then presumably Air Canada and other airlines will be looking for alternative types of aircraft and engines.



DISCUSSION OF EMPLOYEE LAY-OFFS WITH MINISTER

Thomas Miller Bell: In the
minister's discussion with Air Canada yesterday was the question of employment taken up? I realize there has been action on this, but was there any word of a possible abatement of the program of lay-offs being undertaken by Air Canada?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: As I
have already informed the House, I have taken the view that I should acquaint the board of Air Canada with the concern felt by the government and by parliament with respect to these lay-offs. I have done so. The chairman tells me that the matter is under discussion with the unions. I think this is the appropriate manner in which to pursue the issue. Other than saying they were discussing it he did not have anything specific to tell me on the subject.



PENITENTIARIES


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmoni):: I have a question for the Solicitor General. In view of the opinion expressed in the Ouimet Report and the recommendation of the commission appointed to consider the status of women that the prison for women in Kingston should be closed and its inmates transferred to provincial institutions and held there under federal responsibility, what steps are being taken by the Department of the Solicitor General to

February 5, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
effect such a move, and when can we expect the transfer of inmates to be completed and the institution to be closed down?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I have received a report from the internal commission of'the department which is studying the Ouimet report, and I shall be in a position, in a while, to submit to the cabinet a proposal likely to improve the fate of women in penitentiaries.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. In view of the majority report of the conciliation board dealing with the wages and rules dispute between the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the Canadian Union of Public Employees, will the Prime Minister give the House some indication whether he is prepared to find out why the CBC is refusing to go along with the recommendations of the conciliation board on the key issues of wages and job security?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it is not the usual practice of the government to interfere in the process of collective bargaining. I believe the Secretary of State has not made it a practice to do so.


John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the President of the Treasury Board. Will the President of the Treasury Board say whether he has been approached to provide any necessary funds that might be required for any wage and job security plans?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: No, Mr. Speaker.



ROYAL CANADIAN MINT


Mr. F. J. Bigg (Pembina):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister in the absence of the Minister of Finance. On March 23, 1970 I rose in the House and asked for a royal commission to investigate the affairs of the Royal Canadian Mint. At that time, I was assured that all was well. Recent cases have been disposed of and others are pending, which indicates that all is not well. At least, all was certainly not well at the Royal Canadian Mint during centennial year. My question is: Will the Prime Minister look into this matter, since obviously the Minister of Finance has refused to do so in spite of the fact this is a branch of his own department? The matter is of such serious importance-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has asked his question. Perhaps he would allow someone to reply to it on behalf of the government.


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, the Royal Canadian Mint now reports to me, not to the Department of Finance. The RCMP have made a complete investigation during the past year into both internal and external security arrangements. Many of their recommendations have been implemented and I think the security position is secure.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-Sf. George's-Sl. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. In order to help the government find means of overcoming the problem of employment of students, would the minister seriously consider increasing the quotas and duration of student militia training this summer, increasing the training time for the reserve forces, and instituting a Canada wide special militia training program for graduate students, not only to alleviate unemployment but to provide all-round, purposeful development for our youth?
Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of National
Defence): Mr. Speaker, we have had proposals very much like these under consideration for some time, and I appreciate the hon. member's interest in the matter.



INCLUSION OF ROLE OF RESERVE FORCES IN WHITE PAPER

Mr. Doug Rowland (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of National Defence. Is it his intention to include within the white paper he is now preparing any reference to reserve forces and their role, in light of the fact that there is some confusion about the role of the reserve forces?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



INQUIRY AS TO FORMATION OF MINERAL EXPORT CONSORTIUM

Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Is consideration being given to the formation of an export consortium in the mineral industry? Could the minister also indicate whether the federal government is taking any initiative in the matter and what role
February 5, 1971

it might play with respect to sponsorship and participation?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I was about to get up and ask myself a question but it would not have been that one! The term used by the hon. member, "mineral industry", is really too wide for me to understand, but I will consult with him after the question period, clarify the question and answer it Tuesday.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the statement the minister made on motions today about the increase in the price of skim milk powder, has the minister received assurance from the other parties involved that this increase will indeed be passed on to the producers?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I very carefully avoided saying that because it would obviously prejudice the negotiation that has to go on between the provincial marketing agencies and the producers. What we do know is that the value of this manufacturing milk will be increased from 32 cents to 36 cents per hundredweight.


Robert Elgin McKinley: Mr. Speaker, has the minister made any representations to the provincial marketing boards that most of the increase should be passed on to the producers?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, we fully expect that, as the hon. member says, most of it will be passed on, but I should like to avoid becoming involved in the negotiations.



POST OFFICE


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for the Post Office and arises from his statement that he is contemplating a general increase in postal rates. Since the loss of revenue prompting this move results from the loss of business caused by deteriorating service under the former minister, would the minister, as an alternative solution, delay any increase until his new policies have had time to take effect?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, I do not accept all of the premise to the question, but I do think that when we are faced with such a large deficit as is the case this year the minister in charge of the Post Office would only be acting responsibly if he were to look at the question of increasing rates.



TRANSPORT


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. In light of the indication he gave the other day in response to a question that he would welcome an opportunity to look into the procedure respecting the investigation of transportation accidents in Canada, and in view of support from such groups as the Airline Pilots Association, would the minister consider referring this subject matter to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications for review perhaps some time in the fall?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I am not at all certain that that is the appropriate forum. I think this is a matter that requires a good deal of expert-in the precise meaning of the word- advice. I had meetings on the matter last night with a number of authorities in an effort to seek possible alternative ways of proceeding, and I would welcome representations from the pilots association or from anybody else. I have stated that we are not adamant on present procedures but that we would want to be sure that what comes after will be as good or better.



CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. In view of the welcome announcement that the minister was able to make this morning concerning increases in Canadian National pensions, and in view of the fact that this House is as anxious about Canadian Pacific pensions as it has been about those of the Canadian National Railways, would the minister make that fact known to the Canadian Pacific Railway in his own persuasive manner?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I shall be glad to make it known, but I am sure the hon. member recognizes there is some slight difference in the relationship.

February 5, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, last Tuesday the hon. member for Egmont asked me a question with regard to the Lennox Island Indians.
In actual fact, we have received new estimates which are much higher than former ones. I have had to ask the engineers of the department to submit plans that are less costly than the ones formerly submitted.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, may I put a supplementary question to the minister. Could the minister inform the House whether he or his officials have been in touch with the chief of the band council on Lennox Island with regard to this matter? As I understand it, the band council was informed earlier that construction would definitely proceed this spring, and I think they are having considerable difficulty at the moment with regard to this matter.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Probably there was a misunderstanding between those who have communicated. We have received estimates, but we find these estimates too high so we have to revise the plans. I do not think we will be in a position to proceed as soon as we wanted.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I have a supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder whether the hon. member would take note of the fact that we are running short of time. Perhaps the hon. member for Egmont might ask a very brief supplementary and we will then move on to the hon. member for Lisgar.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the minister, in view of these difficulties, would be prepared to provide some form of interim transportation during the difficult spring breakup which almost always causes the death of innocent individuals?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we are well aware of the danger with which we will have to cope in the spring. I can assure the hon. member that we will take all the necessary steps, so that there will not be any loss of life during the spring thaw.


Mr. Len Marchand (Kamloops-Cariboo):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the minister of Indian affairs. I wonder whether his officials are or will be discussing with the Indians of Lennox Island the possibility of moving to another area that is more accessible in

light of the fact that studies indicate the cost of a causeway would be very high?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we are trying to find some means to build a more adequate bridge. However, if it is not possible to do it inexpensively, I will feel that the hon. member has made an excellent suggestion.



ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY PLANS TO INCREASE TOLLS

Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport and concerns the recommendation of D. William Carr and Associates that tolls be increased on the Canadian segment of the St. Lawrence Seaway. Will the minister say whether there are plans to increase tolls on the seaway effective with the upcoming seaway shipping season?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I have already made it very clear, and I welcome the opportunity to do so again, that there will be no change in the toll structure during the upcoming season, as he calls it-that is the 1971 season-nor has there been any decision by the government or by any other agency with regard to increasing tolls. What we have done has been to make the report available and invite public comment. No decision will be made until after that comment has been received.



TRANSPORT


Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. In view of the recent disastrous fire in a portion of the quarters used by the cadets at the Canadian Coastguard College, and since this college was placed at its present excellent location to assist with the unemployment problem in Cape Breton, can the minister assure the House, the leaders of the municipalities concerned and other groups, that the government has no plan, now or in the forseeable future, to change the locale of the college?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, as to the first part I can say we have no immediate plans to change the location. We have been successful in keeping on with that course in spite of the loss of some of the buildings by fire.
The whole question of the future of the Canadian Coastguard College is now being examined and I can
February 5, 1971

assure the hon. member that the present location will be given every consideration in this decision which is a lair distance in the future.



AGRICULTURE


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the fact that farm machinery prices are continuing to rise in Canada, can the minister now say when he expects a final report from the Barber commission on the prices of farm machinery, and when he expects to bring in legislation?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, Dr. Barber has completed his work and I expect the report will be available shortly. So far as legislation to follow it is concerned, I think if any legislation is required within the area of federal jurisdiction we will want to look at the report very carefully.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek asked me whether a directive had gone out to members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police stating that they must take an aptitude test, be bilingual and willing to serve in a Francophone environment.
There has been no such directive. In practice, tasks are assigned to constables and officers of the RCMP as required and when an Anglophone has to serve in a Francophone environment, or vice versa, we offer him every facility for becoming bilingual.
It must also be said that in the RCMP bilingualism is a factor of efficiency, and that we consider it to be an advantage when a member is able to at least understand or speak a third language, as this can be helpful in the kind of work to be carried out.
* * #



FISHERIES


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries. In the
Criminal Code
interests of the fishermen of British Columbia, Quebec, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland, will he give an assurance to the House that the Department of Fisheries will not be downgraded to the point where we will not have a full-fledged Minister of Fisheries in the House of Commons after Bill C-207 becomes law?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest the hon. member is anticipating an order of the day. He is attempting to bring into the question period a debate which is taking place currently in the Committee of the Whole, and which has taken place in the House on second reading of the bill. I assume if the bill passes the committee stage and returns to the House for third reading, it will be debated again. In those circumstances, I do not think the question is in order.


John Howard Lundrigan: I will rephrase my question, Mr. Speaker, and ask the Prime Minister if he will be present in the House in the future when his Bill C-202 is being debated?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice) moved: that Bill C-218, to amend the provisions of the Criminal Code relating to the release from custody of accused persons before trial or pending appeal, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
He said: This bill presents to the House proposals for bringing about fundamental changes in the law in respect of powers of arrest, pre-trial detention and bail. Hon. members may recall a statement I made to this House during the debate on the Public Order (Temporary Measures) Act on November 4, 1970, when I said some of the measures we had to adopt under that Act for a short term were and are philosophically abhorrent to us.
I said that as soon as we could, 1 intended to turn once again along the road of law reform and continuing enhancement and protection of civil liberties. I am pleased to be able to fulfil that undertaking to the House today, as I believe I did when I introduced, a week or so ago, the statutory instruments bill which has now received approval of this House on second reading and been referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
The statute law regarding bail has historical origins that date back to the English Bill of Rights of 1689 which states: That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor

February 5, 1971
Criminal Code
excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. This wording was adopted with very little change by the United States and now forms the substance of the 8th amendment to the constitution of that country which was ratified in 1791.
The language of our Canadian Bill of Rights, for which the right hon. gentleman, the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), deserves the gratitude of his country-and I am delighted to see him in the House- guarantees also that no law of Canada, unless it is expressly declared that it shall operate notwithstanding the Canadian Bill of Rights, shall be construed and applied so as to deprive a person charged with a criminal offence of the right to reasonable bail without just cause.
The attitude the ordinary man and woman in our society holds about our law does not result merely from what we do in this Chamber to reform the substance of the law. It depends, in great measure, on the proceedings which he or she encounters if brought into contact with the law. At root, the attitudes of ordinary men and women in this country are based on the first contacts that they have with the local law enforcement authorities, with the local police force or local criminal court. This bill is directed at making that first contact between citizens and the criminal judicial process less abrasive.
In this age of confrontation, law enforcement agencies the world over are required to deal with a complete spectrum of problems that run from so-called misdemeanors or petty crimes such as theft, assault and so on, through to new and sophisticated ranges of crimes that border on civil disobedience and all the way to violence and organized, syndicated crime. We, as legislators, have the duty to provide the police with the flexibility that they need to meet whatever particular situation is at hand and to meet it, of course, with measures that are effective in restoring order and in preserving public order; yet, these must not amount to overkill, with the resultant destruction of the rapport, public support and community identity which police forces across Canada are striving, I believe, to achieve. This rapport, this consensus, this feeling of necessary community identity between our law enforcement authorities and the people who entrust them with the preservation of freedom and order under law, is the only continuing basis for sustaining the rule of law in our country.
The initial decision to arrest is the decision that activates and initiates the entire criminal law process. It is a decision involving a certain administrative discretion. It is a decision which involves, as Henry Culp Davis, of Stanford University has said, an invisible, low profile discretion that is not easily understood nor seen by the average person. As a matter of fact, the adversary process, as we understand it in criminal law, only comes into play if a charge is laid and not at the time an arrest is made, a summons is issued, or a warrant is issued from the bench. The arrest is the citizen's first confrontation with the criminal law process. The way it is done or the 
fact that it is done may well have a determining influence on that citizen's reaction to the law generally and to the criminal-legal process in particular for the rest of his life.
I believe it to be a fact, Your Honour, that at present in Canada many persons are unnecessarily subjected to arrest.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Such as, under the Public Order Act.


John Napier Turner: And I believe that there are other means, such as a summons, which might be perfectly adequate to secure the ends of justice. I believe that we can in many cases avoid the indignity and embarassment that begins with arrest. At the moment the only alternatives open to a peace officer who has reason to believe that a crime has been committed are, first, to arrest without warrant or, second, to go before a justice of the peace and lay a charge, at which time the justice of the peace decides whether to issue a summons or to issue a warrant. The suspect may be arrested without a warrant or arrested under the authority of a warrant issued by the justice of the peace.
Professor Martin Friedland of the University of Toronto Law School has pointed out in a study he made and incorporated in a very important book entitled "Detention Before Trial" that a summons was used in only 10 per cent of the cases studied, although most prominent criminal lawyers in the metropolitan area who had studied this question were of the opinion, on the basis of their own practice, that a summons was used in at least 40 per cent of the cases. Furthermore, notwithstanding the intention of the Criminal Code that arrests are to be made primarily only after a warrant had been issued by a judicial officer in ordinary cases, arrest without a warrant was in fact made in over 90 per cent of the cases.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Did the minister say 100 per cent?


John Napier Turner: No, in 90 per cent of the cases where an arrest was made.
There are a number of changes in the law of arrest that I feel to be desirable. First of all, I believe that a peace officer, a policeman, presently lacks sufficient statutory flexibility or the statutory guidelines that would help him in judging whether or not an arrest should be made. In order to avoid unnecessary arrests, the peace officer, surely, should be obliged not to arrest without a warrant where he has reasonable and probable cause to believe that the public interest may be secured by proceeding other than by arrest. An exception would be made in cases of murder and certain very serious offences against public order.
Second, a justice of the peace, at the moment, before whom a charge is laid has an unfettered discretion to issue a summons or a warrant. I believe that the present vague and inarticulate situation should be replaced with statutory guidelines which would oblige the justice or magistrate to issue a summons, except where a warrant, and hence an arrest, may be necessary in the public interest.
February 5, 1971

Third, I believe that the police also suffer under our present law from a lack of statutory direction regarding the issuance of a summons. In my view, the law should authorize a peace officer, where a minor offence has occurred, to issue on the spot to the alleged offender a form of summons which might be called, and which is so-called in the present bill, an "appearance notice." This would be very much like an ordinary traffic ticket, and would require the accused to appear at a later date specified in the notice, and he would be subject to penalties if he were not to appear.
Let me now turn to the present situation, as I see it, regarding bail. The processes of arrest and of bail are interrelated. If an arrest is not made, of course bail is not required. If an arrest is made, then the process of bail comes into play. At present, a large number of those arrested are taken into custody. Professor Friedland, in the study to which I referred, demonstrated that of those arrested, 85 per cent were held in custody until their first appearance before a magistrate. But it is this custody period which is really the source of the indignity and embarrassment of the administration of criminal justice, because there is a serious social and legal price attaching to a decision to arrest and hold in custody.
There are the possible effects of custody on the outcome of the trial and on the sentence of the accused if he is not released pending trial. I do not want to attach too much importance to the statistics that I have seen from certain areas in Canada, and in the United States, about the effect of pre-trial detention on the outcome of the trial itself. It may be that there is not an exact cause and effect relationship, as alleged, or as may apparently be borne out by some statistics. But there is an indication that those who are held under pre-trial detention will have, on the basis of statistics, a lesser opportunity for an acquittal and, certainly, they will have less of an opportunity to present a reasonable defence and assemble the evidence necessary for that defence. I think that we cannot ignore, either, Mr. Speaker, the high incidence of guilty pleas by persons who are detained and kept in custody under pre-trial detention. I think there is the possibility, and we cannot ignore it, of improper treatment while in custody and prior to trial. There is the possibility of delay and inconvenience in attempting to raise bail, particularly in view of present financial considerations attaching to the order for bail. There is the opportunity for the accused to become enmeshed with a legal bondsman. Also, generally, there are all the personal considerations to take into account, such as loss of employment, loss of income, loss of protection for the accused's family, the anxiety of relatives, friends and so on.
Every member in this House has had some reason to be painfully aware of this, either because there are many of us here who have practised law or because some of us have had to intervene on behalf of someone not able to obtain bail. Under the present law, a judge or magistrate has no real guidance as to how or indeed whether to
Criminal Code
allow bail to an accused, nor is there any express provision in the Criminal Code stating whether it is the Crown or the accused who bears the burden of proof on a bail application, whether it is up to the Crown to show cause why bail should not be granted or whether, on the other hand, it is incumbent on the accused to show why he is entitled to bail. In doubtful cases, the place where the burden lies may be influential in determining whether bail is granted or withheld.
The corollary to these vague formulations that are now found in case law is that bail of some kind has in practise been required in virtually all cases. The process of bail has been conducted in a rather mechanical fashion, where there has been no meaningful attempt by the judge to determine the likelihood of flight from trial and the predictability of whether the accused will show up for the hearing which, after all, is the main consideration which ought to be before the magistrate or judge at the time of a bail hearing.
The defects of present bail procedures are serious and have been widely documented. First of all, it is obvious that to demand of a poor person any significant amount of bail, either in cash or by way of other security, is tantamount to a requirement that he remain in custody until his trial. Money bail or cash bail in these instances amounts to preventive detention. Second, a wealthy or influential or professional accused is usually able to produce bail with little or no difficulty. Yet, there is no evidence so far as I can find that wealthy people are more prone to show up for their trial than those without influence and without wealth.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: It worked the other way with Banks.


John Napier Turner: Accordingly, the almost universal requirement of bail results in bail for the rich and preventive detention for the poor, without any determination of the real question which I believe should always be before the mind of the court, namely, will the accused appear for his trial. It is not unknown for bail to be put up by a bail bondsman in return for a fee, rather than by the accused himself. Thus, often the real responsibility for seeing that the accused shows up for the trial does not rest with the accused but with the bondsman. Again, bail is regularly set in many if not most, jurisdictions solely by reference to the gravity of the offence with which the accused is charged, rather than being based on an evaluation of the personality of the accused himself, of his identity with the community, and the chances of his appearing for trial.
Finally, although a subsidiary objective in pre-trial detention but a very important one if you weigh the rights of the individual against the right of society to protect itself-the first consideration should be whether or not he will show up for his trial-the second consideration should be whether or not, if he is allowed to go free on bail he will detrimentally affect the public interest, perhaps engage in serious anti-social conduct prior to trial. But I believe that at the moment the decision to set bail on grounds of the public interest is often not accompanied by any evidence or finding of potential danger to
3116

February 5, 1971
Criminal Code
society from the accused or evidence of his tendency to commit or recommit an offence. As a matter of fact, it puts the judge or magistrate in the indelicate position of attempting to predict whether or not a crime will be recommitted or whether or not the accused has a proclivity to crime, and this may again result in a purely mechanically imposed judgment.
The provisions which the government is submitting to Parliament for its approval are based on the belief that the personal freedom of the individual should be interfered with by the state only where such interference can be proven by the state to be necessary to protect the larger interests of society as a collective whole.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: I believe we must go farther than that. I believe that we have to give the courts and the police reasonable guidance on what we mean by the public interest. I believe that we have to support legislation which will diminish personal freedom only when any restrictive measures will in fact result in protecting the public interest. This balance in any given situation or under any particular law which tests the rights of the individual against the rights of society is the most difficult balance that a legislature has to achieve. Certainly, in individual cases, the most difficult decision that a judge and jury as well as police and magistrates have to make, particularly at the arrest and bail stage is, the rights of the accused and the rights of society. These judgments are human, and the balance between liberty on the one hand and the security of the state or maintenance of public order on the other, requires the most difficult human judgment that men and women are called upon to make. There is no need for me to underline to the House how difficult it is to make such a judgment, but I believe that we have to make it if we are to reconcile authority with freedom.
The objectives of this bill are fourfold: First, to avoid unnecessary pre-trial arrest and detention; second, to ensure that in cases where arrest with or without warrant has taken place, the person accused, whatever his means, is not unnecessarily held in custody until his trial; third, to ensure an early trial for those who have been detained in custody pending trial; fourth, to provide statutory guidelines for decision making in this part of the criminal law process relating to arrest and bail and thereby preclude the possibility of "discretionary injustice".
The provisions of the bill place an onus on police officers not to arrest a person where the public interest can be satisfied by less stringent measures. The other options available to the police officer would be the summons procedure that is already in effect under the Criminal Code as well as a new procedure which will involve the issuance of a new type of summons defined in the bill as an "appearance notice". The appearance notice will instruct an accused where and when to attend court and may be issued on the spot by the police officer on the beat or in the car, or following an arrest if an arrest is in fact made.

A bill relating to bail reform was previously given first reading on June 8, 1970, just before the last session of Parliament adjourned. At that time, I observed that there was little prospect of its being passed before Parliament adjourned for the summer recess. I said then that I was most anxious that it be made public now in order that the provincial authorities who are charged with the primary responsibility of enforcing the Criminal Code would have a full opportunity to study the proposals before the bill began its passage through Parliament.
I have discussed the bill at the meeting of provincial Attorneys General in Halifax, last July, and with various police organizations including the Canadian Police Association and the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police.
In addition, the bill has received detailed study by the criminal law section of the Conference of Commissioners on Uniformity of Legislation in Canada.
In September there was a meeting of the Canadian Bar Association. Constructive criticisms were made on the first version of the bill. Also I received many comments from hon. members and I am much obliged to them.
In expressing my thanks for the various observations made on the bill, I must point out that while I have adopted those suggestions that I am satisfied assisted in achieving a clear and workable law, I have maintained intact the basic principles and objectives of the legislation as I enunciated them on June 8, 1970.
So the following is among the most important changes made since the June bill.
Under the June version of the bill, both the officer on the beat and the officer in charge of the police station would have had to rely entirely on their own judgment as to what "the public interest" required in relation to the arrest and the release of accused persons.
The new version of the bill before the House recognizes explicitly that decisions by the police may have to be made under difficult conditions, and spells out guidelines which should be taken into account by them in making their decision. If, for example, a person who is found committing any offence or who is, on reasonable and probable grounds, believed to have committed an indictable offence, exercises his right to refuse to properly identify himself, the officer is justified in arresting him. Similarly, an arrest is justified where the offence involved requires a search of the person or where, if the person were not arrested, evidence would likely be lost or destroyed; and again, where it is clear that, unless the person involved is taken into custody, the crime being committed will be completed or another crime committed.
A main objective of the new amendments to the Criminal Code to avoid unnecessary arrest and, if arrest is necessary, to ensure early release from custody in appropriate cases. To help achieve this aim, new duties are placed on the police to direct their minds to what the public interest requires. However, it is not the intention of the legislation to jeopardize the community by dis-

February 5, 1971

couraging proper and efficient law enforcement by the police. For this reason, the new bill expressly provides that an arrested person who contends either that the criminal proceedings against him should have been commenced in some other way, such as by summons, or that he should have been released earlier by the police, must demonstrate that the police did not carry out their new duties properly if he is to recover damages against them in civil proceedings.
Turning now to bail, Mr. Speaker, the Criminal Code itself does not at present, as I have already said, offer any real direction on the approach to be taken by justices of the peace in admitting an accused to bail or as to the burden of proof on the matter of bail. The new proposals, I believe, remedy the defects of the existing law in the following respects: first, the new general rule is that an accused person should be released simply upon giving his written undertaking to attend court as required for the purposes of his trial. Second, the burden is expressly placed on the prosecutor to justify either any more onerous form of release than a mere undertaking, or the detention of the accused in custody pending his trial. Third, the detention of the accused in custody pending his trial is justified only on the following grounds, and without wishing to trespass on the rules of the House here I would like to refer to the proposed new section 445A(7) which is to be found at page 24 of the bill:
-the detention of an accused in custody is justified only on either of the following grounds, namely:
(a)	on the primary ground that his detention is necessary to ensure his attendance in court in order to be dealt with according to law; and
(b)	on the secondary ground... that his detention is necessary in the public interest or for the protection or safety of the public, having regard to all the circumstances including any substantial likelihood that the accused will, if he is released from custody, commit a criminal offence involving serious harm or an interference with the administration of justice.
This drafting is different from the drafting of any bail law, seeking reform, in the United States. It is also different from the bail reform act of the United Kingdom. I wanted to make it perfectly clear that the primary ground was whether or not the accused would show up at his trial, and that the secondary ground would be whether the public interest would be protected, focussing the mind of the magistrate first on the rights of the individual and secondly, but only secondly, on the rights of society.
The second ground takes proper account, I believe, of the need to protect the public interest, but at the same time it affords the courts guidance against too broad an interpretation of the provision of protection for the safety of the public by using terms like "substantial likelihood" and a "criminal offence involving serious harm."
The proposals in the bill permitting a justice to impose reasonable conditions on the person released are an addi-
Criminal Code
tional encouragement to pre-trial release. Moreover, under the new proposals where the accused is released by the justice, the terms of his release continue right up to the conclusion of his trial. They do not have to be renewed. Of course, they can be varied if the conduct of the accused so militates in favour of their being varied, but they do not have to be automatically renewed.
Finally, there is a review procedure at every stage of the proceedings whereby the action of a sergeant at the desk, the action of a justice, and the action of a judge can be reviewed right up to the court of appeal.
Moreover there are important new proposals in the bill which provide that where an accused does not achieve bail after an arrest, there are methods for expediting his trial. These are not found in the present Code. There are full measures for appeal. The basic test in a case of bail is that if an accused on bail has lost his trial at first instance and then appeals, he is entitled to have his bail renewed if he is able to establish that his appeal is not frivolous, that he will surrender himself into custody as required, and his detention is not necessary in the public interest.
It is significant that in their practical operation, the provisions of the bill place an onus on the police to initiate action in the first instance to grant bail. No application by the accused is necessary. I believe this is important because the average citizen, the average layman, does not really know what his rights may be, and the obligation under the bill is on the police, the law enforcement authorities, to institute the procedures for bail. The bail reform bill will require police officials to make a first assessment as to whether or not an accused should be held in custody, and this will not require any initiative on the part of the accused who, as I have said, may be unaware of the procedures available to him.
The provisions of the bill also ensure that where an accused is being held in custody pending his trial, or pending an appeal of his conviction, the situation must be reviewed by the courts within set periods of time, and directions may be given by the courts for getting the case on to trial, or for review proceedings by way of appeal. Corresponding, of course, to the right of the citizen to receive fair treatment and respect in the legal process, it is his duty reciprocally to honour that same process. A good deal of what we are trying to do in bail reform requires the voluntary appearance of an accused at trial. Correspondingly, I believe that if this undertaking to appear voluntarily is not met by the accused, without just cause, that ought to be an offence. There has to be an obligation placed upon the citizen in return for the added scope that we are giving individual rights and therefore failure, without lawful excuse, to comply with process issued by the courts or issued by the police, and confirmed by the justice, is an offence under this bill.
Under the June version of the bill, failure to attend court when required to do so would simply have been a
3118

February 5, 1971
Criminal Code
summary conviction offence. Under the new version of the bill, a first such offence will remain a summary conviction offence only, but in the case of a second or subsequent offence, the Crown will have the option of proceeding by way of indictment. Obviously, if the charge is indictable, failure to appear the second or the third time should be given the same measure of penalty. Otherwise, the deterrent is no longer there.
Generally speaking, the courts in deciding what sentence to impose on a person convicted of an offence take into account the time he has spent in custody awaiting trial. However, under the present Criminal Code, a sentence commences only when it is imposed, and the court's hands are tied in those cases where a minimum term of imprisonment must be imposed. In such cases, therefore, the court is bound to impose not less than the minimum sentence even though the convicted person may have been in custody awaiting trial for a period in excess of the minimum sentence. The new version of the bill would permit the court, in a proper case, to take this time into account in imposing sentence.
I want to draw to the attention of hon. members that cash bail in this bill is only a last resort. The provision under the present Criminal Code whereby an accused person can be required to deposit cash or valuable security as a condition of his release on bail can in many cases operate harshly against poor people. One of the objects of these new amendments to the Criminal Code is to restrict the circumstances under which a person could be required to deposit cash or valuable security as a condition of his release pending trial by providing that cash bail could be required only where the alleged offender was not ordinarily resident in the community where he was in custody.
I am suggesting to the House and the country that there are cases where a person does not live in the community where he is arrested and has no means of identification, community identity or ability to prove to the court that he will appear for his trial. In such a case the only security or evidence of good faith he could adduce would be cash bail. Even in those cases it is not encumbent upon the justices to insist on cash bail, but the justices are required to go through the same process of reasoning under the general terms of the bill. There is sometimes less guarantee that an accused will appear for his trial when he lives a good distance from the court. He may live out of the community, province or country. He should be given the opportunity to provide cash bail as an added guarantee of his faith.
I wish to stress that because the bill will bring about major changes in the law of arrest and bail, extensive education will be necessary to train the police of this country in the new procedures. It will be necessary to provide guidance for judges, magistrates, Crown prosecutors and defence counsel in the practical implementation of these new procedures.
At the annual meeting of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police in London, Ontario, last September, I urged them to begin initial planning for the training that

will be required. While this bill is simple in intent, it will be somewhat more complex in implementation. Education of the police and thorough briefing of magistrates, judges, Crown prosecutors and defence council will be necessary for the effective implementation of the new proposals.
I have asked the provincial Attorneys General to be prepared to update the manuals now used by magistrates, justices of the peace and police officers. I did so because I believe that it is imperative that the proposals become part of the routine procedure of the criminal judicial process as soon as possible.
I look forward to defending this bill in the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. I will welcome constructive suggestions from that committee and from the House at the report stage. I have enjoyed my association with the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. I believe that for the past two and a half years, on behalf of Parliament and the people of Canada, this committee has dealt competently with a good deal of legislation. I think the record compares favourably with that of any other committee of this House, past or present. I want to thank the hon. member for Welland (Mr. Tolmie), the chairman, and the members of that committee. I just have three more minutes, Mr. Speaker.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Talk it out.


John Napier Turner: The Bail Reform Act recasts some of the law dealing with arrest and most of the law dealing with bail for the first time since Confederation. The real defect of the present provisions of the Criminal Code is that they are too short on precision and too long on discretion. Power to arrest and authority to release are conferred in such broad terms under the present law that the means by which they are exercised in practice overshadow the purposes for which they are granted. The consequence is a widespread, and I do not say deliberate, but unheeding misuse of power and authority. In the nature of things, the impact of this misuse is felt mainly by those, guilty or innocent, who are least equipped to alleviate for themselves the consequences of the unreasonable use of authority. Because of poverty, a lack of education or a lack of influence, they are unable to bring the necessary counter pressure to bear on their own behalf. For them, this bill will be a statutory voice equalizing their opportunities before the courts.
It is an attempt to emphasize that, as the power to fetter the individual is given for use only in the interests of the country, the sole test by which the limits and the fair use of that authority are to be measured is the extent to which its exercise is needed in the public interest. Arrest and detention are not designed to be an informal means of rough justice or anticipatory punishment for the untried. Their purpose is not to usurp the function of the trial or to block or modify the right of every accused to have his case determined under the rule of law. That there should be a need to restate the limits of the power of arrest, and the need to restate the justification of the authority to detain, is in a large
February 5, 1971

measure caused by the lack of specification and precision in the present Criminal Code.
This bill, therefore, attempts to rechannel the law to guarantee the least possible pre-trial interference with individual liberty that is consistent with the proper administration of justice and the interests of the public.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, the minister is obviously in a much happier frame of mind presenting this civilized legislation this morning than on an earlier occasion this year. Perhaps I could call it one o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It being one o'clock I do now leave the chair. The House will resume sitting at two o'clock.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, I believe there is a general disposition to see whether we cannot get the bill into committee before the end of the afternoon. In the circumstances, my remarks will be somewhat shorter than they would normally be. I point this out because the minister has made a long, reasoned and interesting opening statement and I would not want to appear to be doing a discourtesy to his splendid effort. If it would warm the cockles of his heart, I might say that the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Die-fenbaker) will shortly be entering this debate, and he, with his vast experience of human freedom and liberties, will be providing the frosting on the cake for this particular party.
May I make a few observations about the bill itself? It is an attempt to strike a balance between the rights of persons involved with the law and the protection of the public. As the minister has stated, the law under which we operate at present in this field has been in effect for almost a century, and change is long overdue. The hon. gentleman made reference to the question of the protection of society from those under arrest when they apply for bail, and the considerations which should guide a court when determining whether these people should be allowed on the loose between arrest and trial.
This is a fearfully complicated problem, I suggest, because every once in a while we read stories about horrendous crimes being committed by those who are free on bail. While Canada has a reputation perhaps for being overly zealous about keeping people in prison, one sometimes wishes more people of a certain kind were kept in prison. But how to determine whether a person charged with a crime is likely to commit another crime if freed while awaiting trial would probably defy the wisdom of a Solomon.
Criminal Code
One practical remedy has been suggested, one that the bill does not include. I refer to the remedy that appears in the Ouimet report, which is the backbone of the measure we are considering today. The Ouimet report recommended that there should be a central registry in each province so that a court could quickly determine something of the background of a person who is charged with an indictable offence and is asking the court for bail. Either when the minister closes the debate or when the bill is dealt with in the justice and legal affairs committee, I think we should be given an explanation why this rather important element is missing from the bill. I suppose we will be confronted with the explanation that this is really a matter for the provinces. I do not know whether that will be the case, but the Ouimet report did suggest one practical method for dealing with bail applicants who have been charged with serious offences.
Another point which should be made is that we simply do not have sufficient statistics of a comprehensive nature regarding the likelihood or unlikelihood of persons who are released on bail committing further offences. This is a surprising area of deficiency in an age when we seem to revel in statistics and information on all sorts of topics. The finance committee has been considering the Statistics Act and has discovered that the number of categories that statisticians at the federal level have dealt with in an area such as this has almost doubled in recent years. This leads one to think that we have all the information we need, yet that is not the case.
My next point concerns the method of proclamation. In his statement the minister met head on any objection I might have had when he acknowledged that this was a complicated bill-as indeed it is-and that a large measure of education of the police would be required before the legislation could be proclaimed. If the bill has to provide statutory guidelines for the police with regard to arrest and release before trial, then why not follow one of those statutory guidelines that every police officer should follow? I refer to page 35 of the bill, which includes this provision:
(8) The provisions of sections 445C, 445D and 445E apply mutatis mutandis in respect of any proceedings under this section, except that subsection (2) of section 445D does not apply in respect of an accused who is charged with an offence mentioned in section 445H.
I suggest that a police officer who is able to contain all that in his mind has a bright future. I might even suggest that that portion of the bill must have been drafted by the gentlemen who put together the Income Tax Act. Of course, with the Income Tax Act you can hire a lawyer at great expense, or a chartered accountant, to ramble through the various confusing labyrinths. However, in this bill we are trying, in about 75 pages, to tell police officers how to carry out their duties. There must be a simpler way, though if I were challenged to think of one perhaps I would be no more successful than those who drafted this measure. In any event, my little quotation underlines the fact that it will take a large amount of education of our police forces before the measure can be properly put into operation.

February 5, 1971
Criminal Code
Perhaps this really goes to the heart of the bill. We have to make sure that our police officers, given this brand new approach and somewhat greater responsibility in the matter of decision making than they had hitherto, will apply this measure uniformly from one end of Canada to the other. There is nothing that holds the law up to contempt so much as a feeling on the part of the public that it is unevenly administered; that the burden of the law does not rest equally on the shoulders of everyone but that some people are able to escape its provisions. It is therefore important that the police officer, whether in Sainte-Anne de la Pocatiere or in Kamloops, enforces and administers the act on a roughly comparable basis.
The extent of the powers given to police officers and others in charge of detained persons by the provisions of this bill is not, I submit, objectionable in ideal circumstances; but in view of the discretionary powers given the police, and, in the case of bail applications, the judicial powers given the police, I think we should reflect upon the amount of professional training that is given our police officers. In this regard the Ouimet report recommended:
__it would be highly desirable to conduct continuing education
programs for justices of the peace who frequently have to make decisions of great consequence to the individuals directly affected by them and to the community at large, sometimes with very little preparation for the heavy responsibilities involved.
If that is true of justices of the peace, it is equally true of the guardians of the peace, our police officers. While we do not yet have a national police academy for municipal police forces as we have for members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, I think in view of the extra responsibilities that are to be thrown on the shoulders of the police considerable thought must be given to some kind of continuing education for members of police forces. Perhaps the sending out of booklets to crown prosecutors, to provincial magistrates or to justices of the peace would not suffice. Perhaps the whole success of this measure will depend on a consideration to which we have not given enough attention, namely the expenditure of some hard cash on the education of those who are responsible for the operation, and therefore the success, of this measure.
Subject to those qualifications, and the fact that we will be examining many important aspects of the bill in committee, I can say on behalf of my associates that we support second reading and referral to the committee.


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, the members of the New Democratic Party fully support the provisions contained in the new bill. I, for one, welcome the bail reform bill with a little less enthusiasm, perhaps with the same enthusiasm with which I receive my income tax form. The reason is that when I came here in 1965 and met the present Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner), then watched him in operation, he sort of
impressed me as the new Messiah in respect of reform of the criminal law. When I read some of his speeches to university groups, law students, lawyers and various other groups across the country, I realize that he is now becoming a reformer by way of rhetoric rather than by way of action. From the time he became the Minister of Justice to the present he has not fulfilled the requirements of the new Messiah, as I was hoping he would when he took this position.


An hon. Member:: He walks on water very effectively.


John Gilbert: This bill is a step forward in comparison with the long step backward he was partially responsible for taking in respect of the War Measures Act and the Public Order (Temporary) Measures Act. When I think of these two acts and the way his image has been tarnished, not only in the minds of the people generally across the country but more especially in the minds of university law professors, I understand why it was incumbent upon him to make the type of speech he made this afternoon, one of persuasion, clarity and coherence. I really thought he was addressing a jury on many occasions when he spoke today.


John Napier Turner: This is a jury.


John Gilbert: He certainly made a deep impression on all of us. Not only is the Minister of Justice a reformer by way of rhetoric, I think he has taken what is known as the cold-feet approach. I say that because since taking office he has done nothing with regard to the abolition of corporal punishment, nothing with regard to amending the Criminal Code to abolish vagrancy charges; he has done nothing with regard to bringing forth legislation concerning the uniformity of sentencing procedures, and he has done nothing with regard to the dangerous offenders amendment. Those are just four areas in which he has done nothing.
This bail reform bill is a more blatant example of that cold-feet approach. When he first presented the bail reform bill in June of this year, he issued a press release and I should like to quote a few of his statements. From page one of the press release, let me quote the following:
Mr. Turner said that, "at present many people are unnecessarily subjected to arrest, though other means such as a summons might be perfectly adequate to secure the ends of justice-
This is a laudible statement. He then said:
-criteria for bail, reference is made to the special emphasis that is placed upon the consideration of the likelihood that the accused will turn up for his trial.
Then, he refers to the Ouimet report also referred to by the previous speaker. He said:
The Ouimet report recommended that there be an additional pre-requisite for the justification of the exercise of the power to arrest, namely, that the arresting officer has reasonable grounds to believe that arrest is necessary in the public interest. Under this bill arrest will not be justified if the arresting officer has reasonable and probable grounds to believe that a method other than arrest is adequate.

February 5, 1971

Then, in rather strong terms he says:
In this regard it must be borne in mind that peace officers who fail to comply with the proposed new laws respecting arrest may be open to civil liability.
This was the minister's attitude in June of this year. In other words, the onus was upon the police officer making the arrest to ensure that he is following the proper procedure.
In the meantime he has taken the cold-feet approach, and I now refer to this attitude as expressed on page six of the bill. Let me read very briefly from it. He sets forth in proposed new section 436(2) the powers that a peace officer shall have with regard to arrest when he can issue an appearance notice rather than make an immediate arrest. Then, subsection (3) reads:
Notwithstanding subsection (2), a peace officer acting under subsection (1) is deemed to be acting lawfully and in the execution of his duty for the purposes of
(a)	any proceedings under this or any other Act of Parliament, and
(b)	any other proceedings-
In other words, what he has now done has been to shift the onus from the police officer to the person himself.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: What section is that?


John Gilbert: It is section 436(3). He has shifted the onus from the peace officer to the person who is being arrested. I imagine he did this because of the reaction he received from the police associations across the country. That is why I say that in June he had one approach with regard to making arrests, and then in February of this year he adopts another approach. It seems to me that he is really adopting the attitude of law and order, and this is not in keeping with the previous thoughts I had of him as the great reformer of criminal law.
If I have to stress this more forcibly, let me recall a speech he made in May of 1970 at the Bessborough Hotel in Saskatoon to the Law Society of Saskatchewan. He started out by saying:
Canada needs a more contemporary criminal law-credible, enforceable, flexible and compassionate.
He could not get a better opening sentence than that in any speech. A few sentences later he goes on to state:
For it is here that the most fundamental values of life, liberty, property and dignity are to be protected and sanctioned. Here, our commitment to these values will be tested.
I suggest he attempted to test those values of life, liberty, property and dignity in his bill in June, but then he received a little pressure from police associations and other organizations so he adopted the cold-feet approach.


John Napier Turner: May I ask the hon. member a question?


John Gilbert: I will answer questions later.
In his eloquent and persuasive address today the minister set forth the four objectives he had set forth in his
Criminal Code
press release back in June. He said the objectives are fourfold:
(1)	To avoid unnecessary pre-trial arrest and detention;...
(2)	To ensure that, in cases where arrest with or without warrant has taken place, the person accused whatever his means is not unnecessarily held in custody until his trial.
(3)	To ensure an early trial for those who have been detained in custody pending trial.
(4)	To provide statutory guidelines for decision-making in this part of the criminal law process and thereby mitigate against the possibilities for "discretionary injustice" in the decision to arrest, hold for custody, admit to bail, etc.
He said that the bill would continue to humanize the administration of criminal law in Canada, and that the right to bail should not be the prerogative of the rich while detention is the plight of the poor. There cannot be more laudable objectives than these. It is 85 years since we have seen any substantial changes in the powers of arrest, bail and detention, so it was high time for the Minister of Justice to take action in this particular field. He mentioned the methods used in arresting people. Under those methods, an officer could make an arrest without a warrant, take that person into custody, lay a charge before a justice of the peace and then bring a person before a justice. He also mentioned the second method, under which an officer could lay an information before a justice of the peace, who would then decide whether to issue a warrant or a summons.
The minister's illustrations were rather striking. He pointed out that 90 per cent of all arrests in Canada are made without warrant and that in only 10 per cent of cases are they made by way of summons. He quoted Martin Friedland, who said that 85 per cent of persons are under detention before being brought before a justice. That is a striking figure, because that situation is actually the reverse of what was originally intended when the Criminal Code was first enacted. The original intention was that a warrant should be issued before the arrest was made. Now, we find that 90 per cent of all arrests are made without a warrant.
The minister, in this bill, has brought forward a third method which could be used, the method involving the issuance of an appearance notice by the peace officer. This has been likened to giving a person a ticket. That ticket will indicate to the person that he must attend at court at a certain time and that he must attend for purposes of finger printing and photographing. The requirements for these matters will be set out in the notice of appearance.
I am sure some hon. members know what happened in the past with regard to bail. The primary consideration was ensuring the attendance of the accused at trial. Many courts have thought that the attendance of the accused could be better secured if cash or property were put up by the accused or by sureties. From that practice developed what is known as the professional bondsman. Professional bondsmen are not allowed in Canada, although they are to be found in the United States and

February 5, 1971
Criminal Code
elsewhere. As matters developed, these bondsmen in many cases were charging between 15 and 20 per cent tor supplying bonds which were necessary in order to allow the accused a measure of temporary freedom while awaiting trial. It must be obvious that these moneys or charges were paid by people who could least afford them; they could least afford to buy their freedom. The alternative was a period of detention before trial. During that period they languished in jail as a result of crowded dockets.
In this connection, we ought to consider the Manhattan bail project in New York and the report of the Amicus Foundation of Toronto. In both projects, certain studies were undertaken with regard to bail and detention. As a result of those studies, it was found that the percentage of those who failed to appear for trial was almost the same as between those who had posted bail and those who were released on their own recognizance. Let us think about that, Mr. Speaker. In other words, the percentage of people who had posted bail and failed to appear was the same as the percentage of those who failed to appear after being released on their own recognizance.
The second finding was that detention in jail imposed difficulties in obtaining counsel in preparing the case and interviewing witnesses. In addition, detention in jail resulted in a higher percentage of pleas of guilty, as compared with the numbers of accused persons on bail. The attitude of a person who is not granted bail is, "well, I may as well get it over with and plead guilty." A person may do that without appreciating the charge and the consequences of the plea of guilty.
The fourth finding made was that there was a variation in sentences and fines applying to those accused who were in jail and to those admitted to bail. That, I think, is remarkable, and illustrates that the human factor, or human weaknesses of judges and justices, must be considered. It must be far easier for a justice to impose a light fine on a person who is well dressed than on a young fellow who is poorly dressed. Conversely, it must be much easier to impose a jail sentence on a fellow who is poorly dressed than on a man who is well dressed and represented by counsel.
Another factor which these studies illustrated was this: there was a serious loss of employment, a loss of income and loss of protection for the family. That, I think, has been instrumental in bringing about an ameliorated attitude on the part of justices, magistrates-in Ontario magistrates are now called provincial judges-and superior court judges with respect to bail. I can well recall when the late Crown Attorney of the county of York, Mr. Henry Bull, Q.C., was before a committee which was discussing bail. He pointed out the changes which had been made in Toronto. There, bail magistrates travelled round to the different jails during the evening and made arrangements for bail. The attitude of magistrates had changed; they were granting personal bail instead of forcing the accused to put up money. I think that this process, shown in certain ameliorated attitudes,
culminated in the criminal amendment bill of 1968-69, which gave power to the peace officer to release. One can say that this bill respecting bail is almost too late. In England, one does not need to put up money for bail. The same procedure is followed in Scandinavian countries, notably in Sweden and Denmark.
Many of the provisions of the bill are good. It says that the accused does not require to put up money unless he resides 100 miles from his place of arrest; even in that case, the limit is $500. The bail may be by way of the accused's personal recognizance. The justice or the officer in charge has the discretionary power as to forcing the posting of a deposit. Mr. Speaker, the more I look at this bill, the more I consider it as a colossus of complexities. In his opening remarks the minister said, "You know, we are introducing this measure because there have not been guidelines for peace officers to follow with regard to bail provisions. Now, we are bringing them forward. We shall now place a heavy duty on peace officers. Consequently, we shall need to embark on an expensive educational program to train people; they must become familiar with the provisions we have passed and with the application of those provisions."
It seems to me that some of the provisions we are now considering may impose a heavy burden on the peace officer making the original arrest. They may impose a heavy burden on the officer in charge, who is defined as the constable at the station in charge of the guardroom, et cetera. He must ask the accused to sign a promise to appear in court. The minister also mentioned justices of the peace. If the peace officer does not release the accused on bail, he will take him into custody. Next, he must go before the justice of the peace. He has the power either to obtain an undertaking without conditions or to have the man sign an undertaking with conditions. I wonder whether this is the type of procedure used in English courts. It seems to me to be very complex.
I hope when we are in committee the minister will give us the details with regard to the procedures followed in other jurisdictions. Hon. members are familiar with the old, legal maxim that equity varies with the length of the chancellor's foot. If bail is granted, the terms of it may vary according to the health and mood of the arresting officer, the officer in charge, the justice of the peace or the judge. The guidelines that have been imposed may be too stringent rather than flexible and helpful. That is the main thrust of the argument concerning the complexity of the bill. I hope the minister will also go into detail with regard to the problem of detention without bail. In the past, when a person was kept in custody, this was done to ensure his attendance at trial. Now, the minister is setting forth a new test, the primary object of which is the assurance that the accused will be present at the trial and, secondly, the safety of the public. It seems to me that in this case what the minister has done has been to develop case law and extend it into statutory law. I do not think he is to be given any great credit for that achievement.

February 5, 1971

The minister also outlined the procedure whereby the decision of a justice of the peace may be reviewed by a judge, and this is good but it is what we have done in the past. If you were unhappy with the decision of a justice of the peace in the setting of bail, you made an application to a county court judge. One thing I am pleased with is the major change with regard to long detention. The minister stated that if a person is detained for 90 days or more on an indictable offence or 30 days or more on a summary offence the person who has charge of the accused shall bring an application on behalf of the accused so that he may present his case for bail.
There are also some consequential changes that have been made in the law. The important one is that now bail is to be continued until the completion of the trial. Anyone who has done any criminal law work will appreciate the difficulties that we had in the past when bail had to be renewed. At one time every time the accused made an appearance, and certainly when he appeared after preliminary hearing was conducted and was committed, bail had to be renewed. This is a marked improvement in the law.
Also, I must give the Minister of Justice credit for stating clearly and decisively that time spent in custody will be counted against the sentence. In practice, many of the judges followed this procedure, but no judge was bound to take that factor into account. As a result, many people spent much time in jail before their case came up, but this time was not taken into account when the sentence was imposed.
I also commend the minister for the provisions for the release of the accused before sentence or suspended sentence. Many of us have found that before a person is convicted he has to take time out to arrange matters relating to employment and domestic affairs. Detention in jail imposed a hardship. Many judges and magistrates have been allowing the accused to be released pending sentence, although many of them felt uneasy about it because they knew they did not have the power to do so under the act.
These are some of the main provisions of the bill, but the more important one-and I would like the minister to pay close attention to my comments at this point-relates to the application of the reform bill to the young offenders bill. We are now in the process of considering that bill. It has brought about a major change. In the past, when a young person had committed an offence, he was charged as a delinquent. Usually he was charged for breaching a federal, provincial or municipal statute. Now, under the young offenders act, the young person must be charged with an offence under the Criminal Code. The questions arise: if a young person is charged with an offence, would the provisions of the bail bill apply? Suppose an arresting officer picks up a young fellow who is 12 years old, and who has committed an indicable offence such as the theft of $50. Is this arresting officer going to give the youngster an appearance notice? Will he take him into custody and have the officer in charge at the jail make him sign a promise to appear? Just how will bail
Criminal Code
for young people be handled? I hope the minister will give that matter his consideration.
If I may speak for a moment on this matter, may I say that one of my main objections to the young offenders bill relates to the age problem. I tried to point out that there should be an age distinction between the group of youngsters 10 to 14 years old against whom no criminal charge should be laid and the group from 14 to 17 who may be charged for serious indictable offences. This is in keeping with the English law. I find that the minister, although he is usually 25 years behind the times with regard to English law, is trying to keep up.


John Napier Turner: That is not my bill.


John Gilbert: I hope the minister will direct his attention to this problem. What is the procedure with regard to young people being arrested by officers? Are they given an appearance notice or made to sign a promise to appear? Are they bound over by recognizance or are they brought before a justice of the peace who determines bail? These are some of the questions which I hope the minister can answer. I hope that when the bill is before the committee he will bring forth Mr. Friedland who wrote the book on pretrial detention, as well as other specialists in the field, so that we can get the total picture of the application of these new provisions. One thing we would like is uniformity with regard to application. If the minister admits that this is a complex bill-and I say it is a colossus of complexities-surely we should have expert witnesses to guide and direct us with regard to its application. I hope we go into it in depth. I hope the minister will appear and give some of the answers to our problems.


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few comments at this stage of the consideration of Bill C-218 entitled "An Act to amend the provisions of the Criminal Code relating to the release from custody of accused persons before trial or pending appeal".
Mr. Speaker, I feel that this bill has been introduced because of certain needs and of certain pressures coming not only from the public, but also from jurists who must deal every day with persons who have difficulties with the law.
We intend, once again, through this legislation, to amend our Criminal Code. If some persons find it difficult to abide by the law, one must also recognize that some laws do not respect the individual, and that some officers have responsibilities regarding their application.
I received this morning a letter from one of my constituents who is experiencing difficulties with unemployment insurance. This individual lost his job about three months ago, and since that time, he has been claiming unemployment insurance benefits to which he is

February 5, 1971
Criminal Code
entitled, or at least, thinks he is entitled to. Inquiries are being conducted. Recently, he was told that his case was delayed for further study and that it will not be possible to pay him before many days. Therefore, this individual is in revolt, although I do not think that he will put into acts what he feels. However, in such cases, I wonder whether an individual would not be almost excusable if he went wrong.
If we want our laws to be respected, we have to make every effort to understand what is human in the individual and to do him justice. The bill purports to improve the provisions regarding bail which some defendants are required to provide. As we all know, too often unfortunately people get for instance, arrested for theft and without their being fully aware of it, bail is paid out for them to secure their release pending trial. This procedure in effect binds the defendants to whoever has bailed them out often without their consent.
Some of the underworld sharks have found their way into our courts of justice and taken advantage of the situation of some individuals who, as the minister indicated, due to their lack of education or their great poverty cannot afford their defence. They have been offered freedom without asking where it came from and they have accepted it only to discover they were indebted to rather unscrupulous characters and very often it was too late, they were already in the pineline.
Mr. Speaker, I hope that the amendment to the Criminal Code concerning bail will correct this situation and prevent a man who has been arrested from being deprived of his freedom while awaiting trial for the simple reason that he is poor or cannot communicate with his relatives or friends.
I am convinced that this bill will have very serious consequences on the administration of our laws.
The bill also tends to introduce some changes in the methods of work of our police officers. For instance, we want the police officers in charge of arrests to be very careful in carrying out their duties. We must recognize that there has been some abuse here and I think that police officers should not be asked to exercize their judgment in a way that would tie their hands.
I wonder if in the past police officers have always been sufficiently educated about their duties to carry them out efficiently.
I wonder whether it would not be advisable for universities to give special courses to policemen. In the past, policemen were hired for their physical strength without too much concern about their level of education. It was considered that the size of their muscles was enough for them to be good policemen. But I think they should have a fair amount of judgment. A lot of common sense is sometimes required for the enforcement of certain legislation quite often in urgent situations. Our universities should offer occupational courses for would-be policemen both provincial and municipal.
I would like to make a few remarks on the proposed reforms concerning juvenile delinquency. Much is said about juvenile delinquency which is alarmingly increas-
[Mr. Laprise.l
ing in our villages and our cities. Considering the overall situation and certain reports on the subject, one is led to wonder if the parents should not be arrested instead of the children since quite often juvenile delinquency is the direct result of parents' carelessness.
Means designed to prevent juvenile delinquency must be found. There is no need to enact drastic legislation, but rather we have to remedy the situation through proper education for your young people and, in many instances, for their parents.
As concerns Bill C-218, members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs will have an opportunity to hear and question experts called in to give evidence. This will enable them to appreciate much more accurately what this bill is worth.
I hope that this bill will be referred to the committee as soon as possible and undergo a thorough examination.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: The right hon. member for Prince Albert.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, my first words must be to compliment you on occupying the Chair this afternoon, you being a parliamentarian who, through the years, has that love of Parliament which has been evidenced on so many occasions.
I will be frank with you, Sir, when I say I did not intend to participate in this debate. I came into the chamber to listen to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) and I became so interested in what he had to say that certain ideas came to me which I thought I might share with the House.
I am not one of those who say that this bill is a colossus of complexity, to use the phraseology of the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert). It is dramatic, but I cannot argue. The bill indicates a desire on the part of the minister to bring about reform in the administration of the criminal law. While it may be suggested that it could be done all at once rather than piecemeal, that is not the way in which advances are made, particularly with respect to those matters which have an emotional content.
We are today dealing with a problem that throughout the years has been one to exorcise the thinking and emotions of all who have participated in the administration of the criminal law. Too often poverty has been a passport to prison. The poverty of an individual has often contributed to his incarceration because of his inability to obtain bail. Not being able to obtain bail, there is a psychological reaction against him on the part of many people. Even though the individual has subsequently been found not guilty, there is always an adverse reaction to the individual who has served time.
We have representatives of the law in the House. We have a former distinguished member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the hon. member for Pembina (Mr. Bigg). In the discharge of his responsibilities
February 5, 1971_____________________COMMONS DEBATES	3125
throughout the years he has been, above everything, considerate of the rights of individuals. Indeed, that is the background and essence of members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police as a whole. I appeared on many cases in which the Royal Canadian Mounted Police were witnesses. Of the hundreds of cases on which I appeared, in only two did I note any deviation from the course of responsibility that has been the tradition of the force and is the prestige it has established for itself.
We are now speaking on a subject that will receive more than passing interest. The police, RCMP or otherwise, are often castigated, condemned and chastised. We apparently have not had enough hell-raisers in Canada during the past few years: we have permitted the importation of a number of people from the United States whose major subject in speeches and discussions has been contempt for the police whom they refer to as pigs. Recently, in the city of Regina one of these imported revolutionaries stated that only revolution would bring about the eradication of the pigs. He then stated a threatening indecency, that it is not a long journey from being a pig to being bacon. He asked those at the university meeting to which he spoke to do their part to destroy the police forces.
An announcement was made today concerning the commutation of the sentence of death on an individual found guilty of the murder of a police officer. There will be widespread criticism. I was one who took the position that we ought not to divide murder into two classes, capital and non-capital. I contended that it would lead to anomalies. A murderer of the Governor General would be guilty of non-capital murder, but if he killed a guard or police officer while attempting to avoid arrest, he would be guilty of capital murder. There have been tremendous changes in criminal law. No longer are the punitive and retributive aspects of our criminal law of the same importance as they were considered to be years ago. One of my great grandfathers was present in Upper Canada in 1836 at the public hanging of an individual charged with pickpocketing. The pioneers came from everywhere to join in this great celebration. Lo and behold, after the day's festivities were over, four in the audience found their pockets had been picked!
Everyone knows my feelings on the subject of capital punishment. Nowhere in countries with our tradition, our common law background-including Great Britain and the United States-has anyone been executed for murder in the past few years. As I recall it, 580 persons have been in death-row in the United States for 1J to 2J years. Some of them were convicted of having killed police officers or guards.
Responsibility falls generally on the Prime Minister to sign the cabinet order approving the carrying out of death sentences. When I was Prime Minister I signed the last two orders in this respect because I believed the law ought to be enforced and that there was clear evidence of guilt in both cases. The trend in the last few years is away from capital punishment. It has been abolished in the United Kingdom, and as I am informed there is no
Criminal Code
possibility of its being reinstated there despite public demands that it should be. I believe with all my heart that guards and police officers should be protected, but I do not think it is possible for the criminal law to say that if a man commits one type of murder he shall go to the gallows, while if he commits another, even though it be a most dastardly and damnable murder by poisoning or the like, he shall not.
I am one who has formed my ideas as to who in the future has among the members of the House, the possibility of becoming Prime Minister, and I have no hesitation in saying that among the two or three I have in mind, the Minister of Justice falls into that category.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: However, he has been given a series of duties to perform which have not been conducive to public acclaim. I refer first to the hate literature bill. Portions of that bill would, if charges could be laid and proceeded with, put nearly everybody in jail were it not for the fact that prosecutions cannot take place without the consent of the Attorney General of the province within which the alleged words inciting hatred were uttered. Everybody would be in jail: there would be only two groups in our country who would criticize and condemn as far as the FLQ are concerned-those in jail and those of us who were waiting for the others to come out so that we could get in.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: I can only say too that if it were not for the Attorney General of Quebec, upon whom falls the responsibility to determine whether prosecution can take place under the hate literature bill, there would be many prosecutions.
Of all paradoxes, the Minister of Justice, as the law officer of the Crown, had to introduce or support legislation connected with the temporary powers act and, as well, give his undivided support to the imposition of the War Measures Act. I can only conclude that when he now says bail should not be denied and that no one should be kept in jail because of inability to raise a bond or put up cash, the views he expressed as far back as June last, referred to by the hon. member for Broadview, had to be put in cold storage in the months of October, November and December. I should like to see the Minister of Justice, now that he is so definitely of the opinion that changes concerning civil liberties must be made, join at once in supporting an end to the temporary measures act. It is not necessary any more, if it ever was-and as to that I have strong opinions.
In the spirit of reform which has always been a reason for action on his part I should like the minister to consider the setting up of a royal commission to look fully into the question of infiltration into Canada of international wrongdoers and also the infiltration of Communists into areas of public responsibility. I believe such a commission, if it had been set up at the time I first suggested it in October, 1969, regarding the FLQ would have contributed greatly to preventing what took place last Octo-

February 5, 1971
Criminal Code
ber and November. Various individuals were talking of revolution and were uttering seditious libels. But no royal commission was set up and Canada has reaped the disadvantages since.
The minister mentioned new rules for bail and the new plan, which I entirely support of reducing arrests to a minimum. In support of his views Canada has twice as many people in the penitentiaries and jails in Canada than has the United Kingdom. Crimes are multiplying in Canada. In an age of permissiveness, lawlessness has become a way of life. I shall not go into statistics except to read to the House the percentage increase in crime between 1962 and 1969, the last year for which statistics are available. Murder increased by 57 per cent, attempted murder by 169 per cent, rape by 77 per cent, assault, not including indecent assault, by 159 per cent, robbery by 99 per cent, breaking and entering by 97 per cent, theft of property valued at more than $50 by 100 per cent, and frauds by 92 per cent. Mr. Speaker these statistics are an indictment of us all. I believe the legislation now before us will be beneficial in establishing for the individual a reasonable degree of security of his civil liberties, and at the same time will maintain the security of the state.
e (3:20 p.m.)
I suggest to the minister that it is time judges across Canada kept their mouths shut in regard to political matters. As to royal commissions I hope that the Spence commission dispensed with the use of High Court judges for political purpose commissions once and for all. However, I am concerned that during the last few months judges have been expressing themselves in a way that is not in keeping with the independence of the judiciary and its freedom from political considerations. One of our High Court judges of the Court of Appeal of Manitoba, speaking in Toronto, said:
What the FLQ did in the Cross and Laporte matter was a frontal challenge to the rule of law. What Canada did by response was a courageous refusal to yield to that challenge.
He is an experienced and able judge-


An hon. Member:: But a political judge.


John George Diefenbaker: I did not say that. I recall, in connection with that interruption, the remarks attributed to F. E. Smith the inimitable, when he clashed with a judge. He had been truculent in the presentation of his cases, and the judge said to him, "I would remind you, if you have ever read the great Bacon, that youth and wisdom are scarcely ever good companions" Frederick Smith replied, "And, my Lord, I would remind you that the same great Bacon has said that the garrulous judge and justice have never met".
Let me give another example. A judge of the Ontario Court of Appeal made a speech in which he said that Canadians should be prepared to carry identity cards bearing their photograph and thumbprint. I say to that judge that he should stay on the bench, and not advise Canadians they should adopt such a system in this country. Mr. Speaker, judges should not give their opinions when they are of a political nature. I could mention two

others in inferior courts who have been expressing themselves in a way that cannot be justified and cannot but contribute to disrupt the law in our nation.
The minister mentioned that accused persons who possess the necessary resources are able to get their freedom before trial and even after trial. There have been a couple of examples of individuals who, having been convicted but having power and wealth, have escaped. I am not going to bring up the case of labour leader Hal Banks-"Prince Hall" of Liberal favour. He got out on $25,000 bail after having been convicted. He then left for the attractive atmosphere of New York.
However, the United States traded us one in the person of John Doyle, who still takes his part in the political life of this country. Having been convicted in the United States he got out on bail and came to Canada. When I recently mentioned in Barbados to an American lawyer that law enforcement in the United States was not always of the best, he said to me, "Well, we believe in fairness. We traded you Doyle for Banks". Both of these gentlemen were financially well off.
I shall have more to say about Mr. Doyle on another occasion. In the month of April, 1963, he was a mastermind. At a time when certain Social Credit members decided they ought to sign a petition of support for the opposition of that day, he had with him a civil servant of high rank today occupying a seat at the top echelon in a semi-judicial capacity, as well as a man by the name of Moise Durabaner who was the accepted apostle of Liberalism in Quebec. I shall be referring to this matter on another occasion. However, let me point out that Mr. Durabaner could tell a story in support of what the Minister of Justice stated, that too often when an individual is incarcerated awaiting trial, practices take place that are not in keeping with justice. He was kept in custody for seven months, was pressed daily and weekly and threatened until he finally confessed. This is a matter that might be looked into because it would be an interesting story. He has been in custody a long while and there are some who are not anxious that he get out on parole after 5i years.
Since the minister has become "Mr. Clean-up" in the world of criminal law, I think the time has come for a commission to be appointed to look into the state of Canadian penitentiaries. Two or three investigations have been made. I have asked a number of questions during the last couple of weeks concerning the Prince Albert penitentiary. There again, as always, the little man at the bottom gets the condemnation. A public investigation should be conducted into that penitentiary and into others across the country.
The criminal law protects the security of each of us. But the individual who is before the courts has a right to the preservation of those freedoms without which life itself is meaningless. The Minister of Justice referred to the provisions concerning bail, imprisonment and a denial of cruel and heinous punishments going back to the days of the British Bill of Rights which were incorporated in the United States Bill of Rights and amendments to the Constitution, and are included in our Bill of Rights.
February 5, 1971

At this point I want to refer to what to me appears to be a major division in the cabinet opposite-just one of them. The Minister of Justice is sincerely desirous of preserving the freedom of Canadians, and I have no hesitation in saying that. I have never got around to handing out compliments where they are not deserved. It is not flattery to say that. I think of Sir John when he was interrupted once in the House: he had said something favourable about a minister in the Mackenzie government, and the minister said, "That is flattery." Sir John said, "No, it is a compliment". The minister said, "What is the difference?" Sir John replied, "Flattery is an agreeable untruth".
The minister has a feeling for the Bill of Rights, but what of the others in the cabinet? The Bill of Rights came before the Supreme Court of Canada and the government of Canada stood against the Bill of Rights all the way along. It had its counsel argue that the Bill of Rights was an ineffective and pious declaration of human rights but did not mean anything to the individual.
It was not the present minister who made the appointments, but in the Supreme Court of Canada, counsel for the government of Canada, while embracing the principle of freedom in their arguments did everything they could to induce the Supreme Court of Canada to say that the Bill of Rights did not mean anything.


John Napier Turner: That is not quite right.


John George Diefenbaker: Has the minister not read their factum? It is apparent that in the arguments they advanced they were not representative of the present Minister of Justice but of another group within the cabinet which does not believe in human rights.
This is a worth-while bill. It does not cover the entire situation. I presume one is permitted to quote a Chinese proverb, now that the Communists have their representatives in Ottawa: a journey of a thousand miles begins with one step. This is an important step and I congratulate the minister.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Jack Cullen (Sarnia-Lamblon):: Mr. Speaker, it is always a privilege to participate in a debate in this House, particularly when one follows the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker). I was a little suspicious when he indicated that he was not prepared for this debate and I saw the papers he had on his desk and the material he drew upon. I think that was an agreeable untruth. In fact, he may not have been prepared for the debate on this bill but he was certainly prepared for a debate on all the things he had to say.
The right hon. member for Prince Albert attacks the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) and says there is a paradox between the position he took on the War Measures Act and the position he is taking on this legislation. I do not see a paradox. Instead, I see the Minister of Justice doing what he was called upon to do at that time: he was called upon to do his duty, and he did it. If I may be permitted to say this, I think the Minister of Justice
Criminal Code
did his duty well. I do not think there is any question in the mind of any member of this House, particularly those who know the Minister of Justice, that the kind of decisions he was called upon to make at that particular time were necessary. As the right hon. member for Prince Albert has said, in his position as a law officer the minister was faced with making these decisions and he made them.
I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate on Bill C-218 which relates to the release from custody of accused persons before trial or pending appeal. One of the charges levelled by many citizens-and I am embarrassed to say I have often heard this charge made in the House-is that there is a law for the rich and a law for the poor. It is the kind of statement that makes a conscientious member of the Bar wince. I see in this legislation a narrowing of the gap in the treatment that will be afforded to the rich and to the poor. This type of legislation and the philosophy behind it augurs well for increased respect for the law.
I think that in order to understand this particular piece of legislation, we have to look at the present situation. I read very carefully a series of articles by two practising lawyers from Toronto, Mr. Sydney B. Lindon and Mr. Joel Goldenberg. They made some interesting and, I think revealing comments about the present situation. These two gentlemen conducted a Toronto bail research project. This study was conducted over a two-year period from 1966 to 1968. They concluded that the system of bail as we know it today does not work, because it keeps people in custody who should not be there and it allows people out of custody who should perhaps not be free pending trial.
It does not appear to have any greater reliability than release on recognizance without bail, and unhappily it punishes before trial. In effect, it seems to make a mockery of the statement that a man is innocent until proven guilty. Mr. Linden and Mr. Goldenberg stated-I am paraphrasing their series of articles-that the Parliament of Canada must take the lead and provide a legislative and philosophical framework within which reforms may take place.
Knowing the situation and knowing the demands that will now be placed upon policemen in the country, it is my feeling that this legislation pays a great compliment to our police forces. This Parliament has an obligation to pass good laws or what the minister called in one of his speeches credible laws. He said this in an address to the association of police chiefs. As good as the laws that we make here may be, I suggest that we will have worked in vain unless the practical problems of administrative reform and enforcement are solved. The minister in his address to the association of police chiefs said as follows:
It is unfair to expect the police to enforce laws that have lost the respect of the public for in doing so the police become the butt of public criticism, criticism that should be more correctly directed at the legislator.
In fact, it is criticism directed toward hon. members of this chamber. I stated earlier that this legislation pays a compliment to the police forces in Canada, and I submit that we owe it to the policemen to state here publicly

February 5, 1971
Criminal Code
that we will, by this bill, be giving them greater responsibility in their already crowded schedule of responsibility. Modern society has, unfortunately, complicated the task of the legislator and of the policeman. The two gentlemen referred to previously, Messrs. Linden and Goldenberg, have challenged Parliament to provide the legislative and philosophical framework. This bill has done that. If it is not applied with humanity, understanding and common sense by the police, our work will have been in vain. Attitudes of the public are based on the first contact of the citizen with the police, so that they are in effect the vanguard or our front line troops.
The minister and others have outlined the objects of this bill and I do not believe it is necessary for me to reiterate them. We are not studying the bill clause by clause. I support the philosophy and framework of the bill but I thought it incumbent upon me to pay tribute to the men who must make it work-the policemen of Canada. Unhappily for the policemen in all too many communities, the only time people hear about the kind of job they are required to do, the kind they will be required to do under this bill, the type of risks they are required to take, the kind of intelligence they have to exhibit and the decisions they have to make, is at salary bargaining time. A somewhat shallow and cynical public has said: They are saying all these things and exaggerating them because they want an increase in pay.
Happily, in many communities there is a good public relations effort and there are splendid programs of school visits, films and safety lectures. The school systems of the country have an obligation to do that which is possible to accord policemen the kind of respect they have earned and deserve. I believe that the police forces of Canada are intelligent enough to deal with this legislation, because they know it is good law and they will have all the more reason for making it work. Very early in the game, the Minister of Justice met the Attorneys General of the provinces, and this bill has won wide acceptance. As I indicated earlier, the minister spoke to the police chiefs in Canada to impress upon them the need for training and educating so that policemen will understand their responsibilities under this bill.
I do not think this is unpopular legislation. I think it is the kind of law that once again points up a new attitude toward an accused. It is a law which, if properly enforced will bring new respect for justice and the administration of justice. Press comment is favourable: it has indicated that the bill will make major reforms of the Canadian law relating to arrest, detention before trial, and bail. I think the general public will also accept the philosophy of this bill when it understands that it seeks to prevent the unnecessary arrest and detention of persons suspected of having committed a crime, but that it provides proper guidelines for the exercise of police and judicial authorities.
I have referred to the philosophy behind the bill. The philosophy of the bill, in essence, is this: A police officer should not arrest a suspect if the public interest can be secured by proceeding in another fashion. The fashions

are outlined in the bill. If a suspect is arrested and detained, his financial means should not be the determining factor in deciding whether he is to be released on bail pending trial. In this bill we have said a man is innocent until proven guilty and the onus is on the authorities to establish why bail should not be granted. Money is not the measure: the basic question should be whether an accused person is likely to appear for his trial.
One of the other areas which the government and the Minister of Justice have considered is that it is necessary to bring down a piece of legislation and not to be hidebound to follow it in minute detail. This legislation was introduced early, with the full knowledge that time would pass before Parliament would have an opportunity to deal with it prior to the summer recess. This was done, as the minister has indicated, to make it public and so provincial authorities charged with the responsibility of enforcing it would have full opportunity to study the proposals before the bill was passed by Parliament. I am informed that since June, 1970, the Minister of Justice has discussed the bill at meetings in Halifax of provincial Attorneys General and with various police organizations. It was also discussed, as I have said, with the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police which met at London, Ontario. The bill has received detailed study by many sections of the public. It was then reintroduced by the Minister of Justice, as he has indicated. He said:
-I am satisfied assisted in achieving a clear and a workable law but to maintain intact the basic principles of the legislation-
From the standpoint of the people who will be operating under the aegis of this bill, everything possible has been done to bring it to their attention, to give them an opportunity of studying it and to present their observations. In the final analysis decisions have to be made. The bill, as I indicated previously, was redrawn and reintroduced. This is a good bill. It is a bill which I think all members of the House can support in principle. If there are specific changes to clauses that the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs might see fit to make, changes which will improve the performance of the bill, its image or the standard, I know they will be welcomed by the Minister of Justice. On second reading of the bill we are dealing with its general principle, and I have no hesitation in declaring my complete support for this good piece of legislation.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I shall speak briefly on this bill, partly because there is general disposition on the part of hon. members to send it to committee and partly because I think it would be unwise for some of us to reveal the depths of our ignorance on this subject. Speaking as a layman in the field of law, I feel it incumbent on me to speak on this bill which is the first major proposal to be presented to the House by the minister since the activities with which he was involved last fall.


John Napier Turner: The statutory instruments bill was a most important measure.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: The statutory instruments bill has been dealt with. This bill is important, yet the
February 5, 1971

minister's attitude with regard to it is clearly inconsistent with the attitude he displayed last fall. I listened carefully when the minister was speaking before lunch. He enumerated effectively and clearly the reasons for bringing in this kind of legislation, reasons in which I wholeheartedly concur. I am sure that anyone who has followed the minister's speeches during the past six months is more than somewhat amazed to hear him today talking about the desirability of restoring order and that there must not be overkill in the methods used. His remarks concern people who might be detained unnecessarily, as well as the economic, social and financial difficulties resulting from detention. But it seems that only yesterday, or perhaps it was the day before, this minister seemed to be totally unaware that those factors would also apply to those detained under another piece of legislation which even he could not adequately define.
We have learned recently that 90 per cent of those arrested under that law may have suffered, as innocent individuals, the loss of economic and social opportunities, the loss of jobs and all the deprivations following upon that. In addition, they have acquired a criminal record which is available to municipal or provincial authorities. Clearly, under the law as it now stands, this should not be tolerated for one moment. Yesterday afternoon the minister indicated a willingness to tell provincial officials how bad it would be if they were to maintain the records of the 435 people who never have been charged with a criminal offence, because these people to the end of their days would know that their criminal dossier was in the hands of the authorities. This is something the citizens of the country would not wish to tolerate for one moment.
Mr. Speaker, the introduction of this reform bill having to do with bail, detention, and so on, demonstrates that every possible step ought to be taken to ensure that nothing detrimental happens to an accused provided, of course, that he is still presumed to be innocent before being found guilty. This point was argued strenuously last fall when we argued the implications of the regulations under the War Measures Act and, subsequently, those falling under the public order bill.
The minister and the government apparently refused to accept our minimal request for the setting up of a review procedure. The minister argued that you could not introduce such a review procedure when this matter fell under provincial responsibility. It could be argued, if one were looking for inconsistencies in the law we are debating, that it too will be administered on a provincial basis. Nevertheless, that in no way prevented the minister to ensure that people will be properly dealt with by the law. If we have to choose between the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) whom we see in February, and the Minister of Justice whom we saw in November, I will take the one this month, as I am sure most enlightened Canadians will.
As the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Dief-enbaker) said, we must look more earnestly at many aspects of legal reform. One that I hope we will discuss before long is the question of contempt. I think it is interesting that members of this House can pass com-
Criminal Code
ments, as they often do, on the effective use of procedures in courts, but citizens generally, were they to comment publicly on the regular day-to-day business of the courts, would leave themselves open to being cited for contempt by the judiciary. We have seen this with respect to court proceedings in Montreal recently.
The whole question of contempt must be seriously considered if the citizenry of the country is to be able to properly appraise the effectiveness and fairness of the courts. It has been well said by the minister and a number of hon. members that this legislation is attempting to redress the imbalance of the rich with respect to the poor. There is in my mind no doubt that it has been true for many years that those who are well-off have always been more fairly treated

not only in courts but in society-because they have been able to take advantage of the kind of sway and stature that money and influence bring, which naturally give them a better opportunity, even before the courts, when perhaps their objective, legal situation is exactly the same as that of those who have not the money or influence with which to defend themselves.
I trust that in bringing forth this legislation the government is moving to remove these inequalities from the law. What the minister said is very true, that those who have found themselves unnecessarily detained, who have experienced a period of pre-trial detention, have often prejudiced their own case with regard to the eventual outcome of the trial. In fact, if I were to speak as a layman I would say that I have been even more concerned about the personal effect of long periods of pretrial detention. Having spent some time working in prisons and penitentiaries, particularly in prisons where men are usually detained before trial, I know the kind of debilitating effect which may occur, particularly to individuals who for the first time find themselves in the worst kind of social conditions in our provincial and municipal institutions of incarceration.
I think it is a sad comment on our system of penology that those who first run afoul of the law, or who at least are charged with running afoul of the law are immediately thrown into conditions that cannot help but influence them to become increasingly anti-social and at odds with society in general. It would perhaps be useful if more of our public leaders and members of this House would visit people being held before trial or would talk to those who have had that experience. There is no doubt in my mind that if that incarceration does not immediately affect the progress of the trial, it certainly has a disastrous, long-term effect on the accused. For that reason, if for no other, I welcome the legislation put forward by the minister. There are, however, two or three dangers in this legislation of which we should be aware.
In his opening remarks the minister said that one of the main objectives of this bill is to ensure an early trial. I hope this is the case, but in view of the tremendous number of trials pending in many provinces because of an insufficient judiciary, it is not at all obvious that by passing this legislation we will alleviate the problem. By

February 5, 1971
Criminal Code
putting this bill into law, steps must be taken immediately-perhaps the provinces could do so in conjunction with the federal government-to ensure that the undue or lengthy detention period before trial does not occur. If these steps are not taken, then indeed, the bill will defeat the very purpose for which it was introduced.
I was intrigued to hear the comment made by lawyers who have spoken in the debate regarding the complexity of this legislation. We know that we live in an increasingly complex society, but many of the problems we face are not simple in terms of solution. I think we must avoid, if at all possible, introducing solutions that are more complex than need be. I think that one of the services the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs could provide would be to ensure that in the final analysis the legislation directed toward these reforms is as simple and clearcut as possible.
I think this legislation introduces a number of important questions with regard to administration, not the least of which is the effectiveness of those in positions of authority in the police forces. This interesting question was raised at length during our debate last fall on the War Measures Act and the temporary public order bill. Increasingly, questions are being raised as to how effective police action can be in a modern society.
I think members on all sides of the House have been disturbed by the increasing loss of respect for authority and the frequent inability of authority to question itself effectively and objectively. In the first instance, I think public confidence in the police must be restored where it has been lost. Second, I think we must begin an effective upgrading program so that modern-day police officers will be competent and able to handle the kind of legislation that is placed in their hands. The wide powers of judgment being asked for in this bill will require a much more comprehensive training-perhaps in-service training-for police authorities provincial and federal.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It being four o'clock p.m.-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, it has been stated several times that there is a general disposition in the House to conclude second reading of this bill today. Toward that end, the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow), whose bill would be coming up in this hour, has agreed that it would be all right for me to say that we would give unanimous consent to Your Honour not seeing the clock.


John Napier Turner: I thank the hon.
member.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: We give that agreement as well.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I will conclude very quickly so that other hon. members may be able to speak on second reading. I conclude by saying that because of the substantial change with regard to bail and detention, we require much greater public education.
As we know, in the main public education is a provincial responsibility. It seems to me the government will

have to be prepared to assist the provinces, where requested, in this respect in order that a much greater understanding of the operations of the law will ensue. It has been suggested that the police officer will have a responsibility to inform the individual of his rights. Traditionally, that has been expected; but in addition I would hope that in concert with this legislation there would be a program to educate citizens so that generally they would know the application of the law with respect to their individual situations.
Finally, with reference to the meetings of the committee which will study the bill in detail, I hope the committee will have available the testimony of those who can offer professional advice and those concerned with the area of provincial administration, so that when the bill goes into our statute books it will be in the best interests of Canadians.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I commend the minister, without reservation, on the introduction of this bill. I speak only for myself: I know this is perhaps an unusual occurrence, but whenever it is deserved I prefer to take this attitude. Contrary to the fears expressed by some people, I am satisfied that the legislation will aid law enforcement. It will do so by promoting greater public respect for the law and for its enforcers, the police and the courts.
Everybody in this House would agree that law and order are essential to the security of all of us. There are some people outside the House who perhaps do not accept that, but I think it is a basic truth. At times, the slogans of law and order are used to deny the liberties and rights of the individual, and I think the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) was absolutely right when he said that the real task of legislators, as well as of courts, is to balance individual liberties against the needs and the necessities of the community.
I am happy that the atmosphere that surrounded the invocation of the War Measures Act and the enactment of the public order act has not prevented the minister from bringing forward this bill which expands the rights of the individual. I am glad that the program of reform, to which I know he is devoted, has not been ended by the degree of public fear and hysteria which accompanied the events of last October and November. I think this legislation is needed, and has been badly needed, for a long time.
The minister referred to Professor M. L. Friedland and his book on this subject. I have in my hand an address delivered by Professor Friedland to the John Howard Society in February, 1966, which I think summarizes extremely well the case for this bill. I am not going to read all of it, but the first thing emphasized by Professor Friedland in his address is the very infrequent use of the summons to initiate criminal proceedings in this country, as compared with the situation in England. He said:
The relatively Infrequent use of the summons is clearly undesirable in light of the many sound arguments in favour of limiting the process of arrest to those cases in which it is a reasonable necessity.
When an accused is summoned, rather than arrested, all the harmful consequences of custody pending trial are automatically
February 5, 1971

Criminal Code
eliminated: for example, the higher incidence of guilty pleas for those kept in custody;-
The minister referred to that.
-the possibility of improper treatment while in custody; the possible delay and inconvenience in attempting to raise bail; the opportunity for the accused to become enmeshed with illegal bondsmen and unscrupulous lawyers; and generally all the personal considerations, such as loss of employment, decreased income and protection for the accused's family, and anxiety of relatives and friends.
The minister referred to these matters when introducing this legislation, and they are extremely important to the individuals concerned. Professor Friedland went on to say:
English law has always maintained that the physical integrity of the body and freedom from confinement are of paramount importance. Summoning an accused saves him from the indignity of being physically taken away by the police. Unless the application of even the most minimal force is reasonably necessary it should not, of course, be applied.
He want on to express what I think is the core of the reason this legislation is required.
Unnecessary arrests weaken the whole fabric of the administration of justice. They further community disorder and create bad will between the public and the police force. Many of the cases involving police violence, resisting arrest, and assault on police officers arise out of situations in which the police are legally but needlessly using the arrest procedure. The administration of the criminal law directly affects a substantial proportion of the community. Not only will the accused react unfavourably to what he feels to be abusive procedures, but his friends and relatives will also tend to lose respect for those who use unduly harsh and primitive techniques for compelling appearance in court. By arbitrarily arresting all accused persons the police cannot hope to enlist public sympathy and support.
I sincerely believe that is entirely true. Most of us in this House come from elements of society that have relatively little contact with the police. We are fortunate that we do not often have to face these things. But I think a great deal of the lack of sympathy from the police, which people have complained about, has been due to the practice of unnecessary, unneeded and unrequired use of the procedure of arrest rather than the procedure of summons. I think the usefulness of the legislation will be tested in practice by whether there will be a substantial reduction in the use of arrest and a substantial increase in the use of summons and the other notification procedures outlined in the legislation.
In addition to dealing with the substitution of less punitive forms of initiation of criminal procedures, the bill also deals with the question of bail. Again, I think the essence of this was set out in the address by Professor Friedland, to which I have referred, when he said:
In the setting of bail there is an undue preoccupation with its monetary aspects. Security in advance is generally required in our courts. At the time of the study release on one's own recognizance was used in less than 20 per cent of the indictable offence cases where bail was set...
The tragedy of this preoccupation with money is that a large percentage of persons are unable to raise the bail that is set. The data showed that 62 per cent of all persons for whom bail was set at their first court appearance were unable to raise it, and in particular, when bail was set at $500, 60 per cent were unable to raise it.
The purpose of this bill, in part, as I understand it is to remove that discrimination which means that a person with property can obtain bail, can obtain liberty and escape from the indignity of prolonged or any imprisonment before conviction has been registered. He can escape that indignity if he has money: he cannot if he does not have money. That is the plain fact that has existed for many years in our criminal procedure. It is grossly unfair. It creates disrespect for the law; the feeling that the law aids one section of the society and not another. This is one of the reasons for dissatisfaction, contempt and eventual lawlessness.
If an accused is to be released, he should be released on his own recognizance. If the recognizance is not appropriate, it should be by surety of a reasonable amount recoverable if an accused fails to appear. There should be an adequate investigation of the background of arrested persons. As any practising lawyer knows, bail is often set without any knowledge of the person concerned. It is set almost entirely on the gravity of the offence. It is necessary to have background information when allowing bail. I hope this bill will promote an investigation of the background of those concerned. Financial security in advance must be eliminated from our release practices before trial. Because the bill does this, I think it deserves favourable consideration by the House.
It has been justly said that the bill is complex. However, it is not unduly complex. If the members of this party who are members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs can assist in removing the complexities of the bill, we will try to do so.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I will not take very long in commenting on this bill. It has had a fairly good run this morning and this afternoon. Many of the points that I might have made have already been underlined. I support the bill, as do my colleagues. Without being unfair, I say that this bill, unlike the young offenders' bill, indicates that the minister has been sensitive to the opinions and expertise of those who have given this subject a good deal of study. I congratulate the minister for this. In doing so, I do not want to be uncomplimentary to the Solicitor General (Mr. Goyer) who was practically handed the bill with his appointment as Solicitor General.
I think there is a lesson to be learned here. The bill shows that care and attention has been paid to this question by those who have knowledge and information. The minister has had the advantage of many inputs, to use the current cliche, one of which is the book entitled "Harrison Liberal Conference, 1969". I have volume 3 in my hand. This book contains a most interesting summary of a paper that was presented. It might be worth while quoting. I will not quote the complete summary of what occurred at Harrison Hot Springs but just that aspect which deals with the bill now before us.
Sixty-two per cent of all people who had a bail with deposit order set during a 6 months' study were unable to post that bail. They could not afford to buy their freedom.

February 5, 1971
Criminal Code
The language used at Harrison Hot Springs is being parachuted into the record by the member for Fundy-Royal.
Studies have indicated that the fact of being in custody at the time of the trial will prejudice the accused person.
The Amicus Foundation report noted that almost the same percentage of people who had posted bail failed to appear for trial as those who were released on their own recognizance.
The writers suggest that the Criminal Code's section 125 be vigorously Implemented thereby prosecuting those who fail to appear for trial.
An abuse of the bail system is the usurious rate of interest charged by money lenders to post bail. Possibly a worse abuse is that inability to produce bail imposes punishment before the trial.
Crowded dockets require inordinately long periods of incarceration before trial.
I may be transgressing on a field which is basically a provincial responsibility, although sometimes we might profitably indulge in a discussion of this whole area. I do not believe one can slough off his responsibility in a sort of constitutional minuet as has occurred in recent months. There are very few cases where an accused person should have to wait for what in another age was the arrival of an assize judge. This should not be part of the modern day mobility. This aspect might also be investigated by the minister, who has been having very useful meetings with Superior Court judges across the country with regard to the whole aspect of sentencing.
When this bill becomes law it will require a great deal of study by the various police departments in Canada. I hope that the minister will continue to show leadership in this field by initiating discussions and studies that will be essential if the municipal and provincial police forces and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police are to give effect to the philosophy behind this bail reform bill. It must not be left to an ad hoc committee of Attorneys General or Ministers of Justice: I hope the leadership will come from the Minister of Justice in the same way that it has with this bail reform bill. The hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) referred to a very interesting study made by Professor Friedland. I shall not lard up the record by repeating what he said. He made his speech ahead of me, so Professor Friedland is now his man. Presumably, Professor Friedland is also the minister's man. A good deal of very useful information contained in Professor Friedland's articles and studies have obviously gone into the drafting of this statute.
We must continue to keep a sharp distinction between our treatment of a man suspected of a crime and a man convicted of one. It is not a useless admonition to keep reminding ourselves of this. The amendment to the Criminal Code, through this bill, requires careful examination by the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. I am anxious for it to soon become part of the statute law oft Canada. Like other hon. members who have spoken, I think the appearance notice will be an extraordinarily helpful reform to the law. For the life of me, I have never understood why the police have felt compelled to use warrants in so many instances. This bill will give them not only the alternative but a legal obligation to use the appearance notice. It will compel the

courts as a general rule to accept a man's word or written undertaking that he will turn up for his trial. These two things are the key to what the minister described as a complicated piece of legislation.
I had occasion once in my career at the Bar to appear on behalf of an 11-year old boy who had been kept in jail for eight days without a charge being laid. We found, when a visiting clergyman drew the case to my attention, that the police had been trying very hard-this is not a general rule, I think, with the police-to "break" him. That is the term they use. When I arrived at the jail I was asked by the police officer to wait because they were just about to "break" the boy. I suggested it would not be the boy who was broken, but the police, if he was not delivered with me to the magistrate within minutes.
I am not usually as upset about things as I was then. This is a terrifying example of what could happen in a small out of the way place if people, particularly the police in this instance, are not sensitive or knowledgeable about their obligations under the law. This is a roundabout way of saying there will have to be help given to the police. Some have suggested the publication of a manual written in straightforward terms and also that an opportunity be given to the various police forces for re-education in connection with the whole thrust of what is a very useful bill.
There is one provision which worries me a little because of its complicated nature. I refer to the criticism which was expressed by the Quebec Association of Judges in a brief dealing with the clause amending section 445 C. The judges suggested it should be amended so as to prohibit not only publicity of a proof made, but also publicity being given to the name of an accused from the time of his first appearance in court. There are recommendations which I am sure the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs will wish to study. A serious problem also arises from the fact that an accused might be prejudiced by having his case brought before the magistrate who heard his application for bail. It should therefore be possible to arrange for another magistrate to conduct a trial in circumstances in which the magistrate who would normally try the case had disposed of a contested bail application during which evidence not admissible at the trial had been produced. The judges claimed that it would be very difficult to administer the clause because there are so few judges and their workload, already great, would not allow an extra burden to be placed on Superior Court judges. If the situation is bad in the large cities, even more serious inequalities might arise in the smaller centres.
I have just given hon. members an instance of what can happen in a small jail. I do not know whether, had there been a Superior Court judge there, it would have made any difference. Of course, if the matter had been brought to his attention the situation would have been remedied. As the judges say, it may well lead to unfortunate situations in smaller centres which judges of the Superior Court of criminal jurisdiction visit only on occa-
February 5, 1971

sion on circuit or for assizes, depending upon which of these terms they prefer.
Statistics are not available on a comprehensive basis with respect to the number of persons released on bail charged with indictable offences who commit indictable offences while on bail, or the relationship of a criminal record to the probability of the commission of an indictable criminal offence while on bail. The Ouimet report recommended that there should be a central registry, and I am sure this has been discussed. I have not heard every speech in this debate, unfortunately, but I hope the federal government is working on this problem and that it will establish a central registry in each province with some link with the national capital. This would be an important addition to the legislation when the act receives the approval of Parliament and becomes law.


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

Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, there seem to be a few reluctant people around. I believe there have been some discussions and it may be possible to proceed with orders Nos. 27 and 39. Both are set for report stage and third reading. I am told the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance has a brief statement to make in each case, and provided he is unprovocative these two items should get through fast.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: I intend to be unprovocative, but I must say the items with which I am prepared to deal are items 39 and 51, the Canada-Jamaica Tax Convention-


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is satisfactory. We shall switch to items 39 and 51 and hear what the parliamentary secretary has to say.



FARM IMPROVEMENT SMALL BUSINESSES AND IMPROVEMENT LOANS ACTS


John Napier Turner: that Bill C-191, to amend the Farm Improvement Loans Act, the Small Businesses Loans Act and the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, be concurred in.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Mahoney).


Stanley Howard Knowles: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, this is the report stage: the hon. member should wait for third reading.
Farm, Improvement Loans Act


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I will put the motion again.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Again on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) is not here. The motion should be made by a minister who is here.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Mr. Turner, for Mr. Benson, seconded by Mr. Richardson, moves that Bill C-191, an act to amend the Farm Improvement Loans Act, the Small Businesses Loans Act and the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act, be concurred in. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read the third time? Now?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Napier Turner: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, I would not want to take a chance on anyone missing this remarkable offering that they are about to receive. The only reason for saying anything at all is that a number of general questions regarding the scope, application and effectiveness of these programs were raised at the committee stage and the government would like to record a review of the programs being undertaken. For this reason I should like to take about two minutes of the time of the House.
We have before us Bill C-191 which has been reported, without amendment, by the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs. The purpose of this bill is to extend the existing legislation governing these programs for a three-year period ending June 30, 1974, and to provide for appropriate loan pools to permit their continued operation. The current lending periods for these programs would, in the absence of amendment, expire on June 30 of this year.
Hon. members will recollect that when the most recent amendment was made to one of these acts, the Small Businesses Loans Act, in March 1970, the government indicated that it was the intention to review these three very similar programs as a group in order to assess their effectiveness and, if justified, to bring forward any changes resulting from the review at a later date. This review has been started, but it would be unrealistic to expect it be completed before the end of June, 1971, when the present legislation expires. In particular, sufficient time must be allowed to obtain a comprehensive picture of the views of the various interested groups affected by these programs-of their needs and the adequacy of existing private and public facilities.
With this in mind it would seem shortsighted to make piecemeal changes in the existing legislation at this time without the benefit of a comprehensive overview. It is the government's intention to proceed with this assessment

February 5, 1971
Canada-Jamaica Income Tax Agreement and to press forward with it, bearing in mind that it is essential to come up with realistic conclusions covering all facets of the situation in order to ensure that any government action will be effective and meaningful.
The government has already received a number of suggestions with respect to the provisions in the present legislation, as have a number of hon. members. All such submissions are, of coruse, receiving study and will be taken into account in the course of further developments. In the interim, passage of Bill C-191 will ensure that these programs will continue to be available to these three important sectors of the economy.


Gerald William Baldwin: Just one or two
sentences, Mr. Speaker, keeping within the caveat laid down by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) not to be provocative. I only want to say that it has been reported to me that the committee hearings were excellent and that the members of the opposition, with that inspiration, intellectual honesty and dedication to duty that characterizes them, had an extremely useful discussion on the bill. They made a lot of very interesting and provocative suggestions which I am sure the government will take in mind, and when these bills come to the House to be amended once more, as I am sure they will, the government will have the benefit of the collective wisdom of the opposition members of the committee.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I merely wish to endorse the well spoken words of the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin).
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



CANADA-JAMAICA INCOME TAX AGREEMENT ACT, IMPLEMENTATION OF AGREEMENT FOR AVOIDANCE OF DOUBLE TAXATION

John Napier Turner: that Bill C-217, to implement an agreement for the avoidance of double taxation with respect to income tax between Canada and Jamaica, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: Again being unprovocative, Mr. Speaker, but just a trifle longer, I am sure that when this bill is referred to the standing committee members of all parties, as they did in the case of Bill C-191, will have an opportunity to suggest improvements.
The purpose of this bill is to implement an agreement with Jamaica for the alleviation of double taxation on certain categories of income. Canada now has international agreements with 15 other countries relating to income taxation. Such an agreement, in fact, existed between Canada and Jamaica for some time by virtue of a special provision of the 1946 Canada-United Kingdom income tax agreement which extended its application to

a number of Commonwealth territories. In 1965, that agreement with the U.K. was terminated and Jamaica was not party to the new Canada-U.K. agreement. Shortly thereafter, following the 1966 Commonwealth Carib-bean-Canada conference, negotiations began with Jamaica for a comprehensive tax agreement. However, they were interrupted after the report of the Royal Commission on Taxation was made public early in 1967. The pending reform of the Canadian tax system made it difficult for Canada to contemplate the negotiation of comprehensive fiscal arrangements with Jamaica or, indeed, with any other country.
In 1970 Jamaica introduced a fundamental reform of its system of taxing corporate earnings and distributions. The government of Jamaica approached Canada to texplore the possibility of entering into a special agreement in order to alleviate the adverse effects of the Jamaican tax changes on those Canadians with Jamaican investments or business activities. Over the years Canadian capital has been a significant factor in the development of Jamaica.
In view of the special circumstances involved and of the special relationship which has long existed between our two countries, it seemed appropriate to conclude an agreement which would also serve in an important way to facilitate Canadian investment in Jamaica. The agreement, which is appended as a schedule to this bill, is of limited scope. As reflected in the preamble to the agreement, it is intended as an interim arrangement to be replaced by a more comprehensive agreement as soon as the program of tax reform, now under way in both countries, permits. The agreement deals with the taxation of four categories of income: dividends, management and technical service fees, teachers' salaries and the earnings of non-resident employees.
On dividends, the withholding tax is restricted to a maximum rate of 22-J per cent. This represents a reduction from a 37J per cent statutory rate in Jamaica. It will have no effect on the existing rate of Canadian withholding tax, which remains at 10 per cent for dividends paid by companies with a degree of Canadian ownership and 15 per cent in other circumstances. On management and technical service fees, the Jamaican withholding tax is reduced from 25 per cent to 12J per cent on the gross amount of the payment. The same rate will apply to interest, rent and royalty payments to Canadian recipients. The agreement also contains additional technical provisions designed to provide effective double taxation relief on such items of income.
The Jamaican tax on dividends and fees for management and technical services paid to Canadians is automatically reduced should Jamaica impose a lower rate of tax on such payments to residents of any other country outside the Caribbean Free Trade Association.
Under another article of the agreement, Canadians are entitled to a two-year exemption from Jamaican tax on any remuneration from teaching in Jamaica. This represents a special concession on Jamaica's part to attract Canadian teachers. The agreement does not provide for
February 5, 1971

a reciprocal concession by Canada. The government has already given notice of its intention to negotiate the termination of the special treatment given foreign professors and teachers under a number of Canada's existing treaties. In addition, each country agrees to exempt from tax up to $2,500 of the remuneration of temporary employees who are resident in the other country.
Finally, the benefits of the agreement will extend from the beginning of 1970, the date on which the Jamaican corporate tax reform took effect.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious from what the parliamentary secretary has said that this bill lends itself to consideration by a Standing Committee. There are complexities in some of its provisions, and the committee will have an opportunity to study them and report to the House. I end by saying that while I do not usually pay tribute to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson), I must in this case. I notice this agreement was made at Kingston, Jamaica, on January 4, 1971. I commend the dedication to duty of the minister who was prepared to sacrifice his winter vacation and go to Jamaica to execute the agreement at that time of the year.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, as has been indicated, this is the type of bill that can be dealt with best in a committee and we are
Canada-Jamaica Income Tax Agreement
happy to concur in the motion for second reading in order that this may be done.
While I am on my feet, as ministers used to say before Mr. Speaker got wise to the trick, it seems to me that the best way to achieve avoidance of double taxation between Canada and Jamaica would be for Jamaica to become part of Canada. Bearing in mind the kind of weather we have had for the past few weeks and the kind of weather that exists outside today, I think if I were to move such a motion at this time it might receive unanimous consent.
Mi. Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, may we call it five o'clock?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: By consent, this House stands adjourned until Monday next at two o'clock p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 4.45 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, February 8, 1971